🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank Dresser wrote:
> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Frank Dresser wrote:
> > > And more expenses for the broadcaster.
> >
> > They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third
> > channels  Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added
> > Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station.  Now
> > listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy.
>
> But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course.  Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.



> > Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
> > don't need to do anything.  They can just limit themselves
> > to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps).
>
> Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
> they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive.  No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.


> > > 5.1 would be compromised in similar ways.
> >
> > And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain,
> > and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing
> > bitrate or (b) losing customers.
>
> Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
> sound would matter.  Not many.

Agreed.  But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality.  Only 24 is sufficient.  At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality.  It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.




> > People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in
> > droves.  Why?  Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess
> > the FCC left behind.  (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray
> > battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.)
>
> Oh?  A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
>  sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared.  Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.


> > I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to
> > upgrade.  It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or
> > 4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people.
>
>
> Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
> And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
> how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
> to sell commercial advertising.  > Hint:  They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.



> > In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....
>
> Baltimore, huh?  Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry.  There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis".  The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.





> HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but
> it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
> profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright.  They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.