[opendtv] Re: Ajit Pai comments at future radio and audio symposium
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:04:16 -0500
On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Not earphones. The audio cable that goes from tiny receiver to car's audio
system.
Interesting. What does this HD Radio use for an antenna when you are not using
that audio cable? Does it require earphones or an external audio system? I have
a little Panasonic radio they gave to the press at NAB many years ago. It has
no speaker, so its earphones or external speakers.
You can buy the HD Radio option on almost every new car available
today Bert.
You just finished posting an article that said only four GM trucks? I know
the situation is improving, but your pronouncements have become extremely
non-credible. Prove it. Tell me what car models offer HD Radio. You might
just be surprised.
The article I posted, which you are citing improperly said:
General Motors is among the major automakers to supply the HD Radio
Experience to their customers. These four truck models join the more than 200
vehicles available with factory-installed HD Radio receivers.
The Chevrolet Silverado and Silverado HD offer HD Radio receivers on the
eight-inch Chevrolet MyLink infotainment system, which is standard on the LT
trim level and above. In addition, the GMC Sierra and Sierra HD offer HD
Radio receivers on the eight-inch GMC IntelliLink infotainment system, which
comes standard on the SLE trim level and above.
So HD Radio is now standard on these trucks at certain trim levels. GM offers
HD radio on more than 200 vehicle models...
This link appears to be outdated in terms of the availability of HD radio
options on new cars, but provides a good look at what is available and models
where HD radio is now standard equipment.
As I already explained to you, Craig, more than once. Are you just now
getting it? Quality-wise, yes. But you are cluttering up the FM band, wasting
the MW band completely, and you won't have the extra subchannels.
The sub channels are mostly useless; they may be viable in larger markets where
demand for "affordable" access to radio is stronger. As Ramsey explained, sub
channels dilute the audience of the primary programming and do nothing to
compete with Streaming radio services.
And as Doug correctly pointed out, there is no shortage of FM spectrum across
most of the country. Your clutter argument is simply irrational.
And finally analog AM is not going away. The 50kW stations are doing just fine
in the major markets where radio spectrum is in higher demand.
As the article you posted by Ramsey clearly stated, the extra
choice is meaningless.
This repeated nonsense of yours is meaningless. Once again: with your logic,
only one radio station should exist. This is called "reduxio ad absurdum." If
extra choice did not matter, Internet radio would be a huge failure. Cable TV
would be a huge failure.
Speaking of "redux in absurdum..."
Ramsey correctly noted that broadcast radio is competing with internet radio,
not to mention USING the internet to extend its reach. But it cannot provide
the kind of choice offered by streaming radio services that allow the user to
customize their streams. And he noted that even where there is extensive choice
- and this applies to TV as well - the typical consumer only uses a small
subset of the choices available.
Broadcast radio derives most of its advantages via personality - this includes
both stations with music and talk formats.
Bottom line, radio is doing just fine in an increasingly competitive
marketplace.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: