[opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:45:07 -0500
On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The distance is irrelevant - it is, as I said yesterday based on
the contour of the station,
Please feel free to read my original post, in which I already explained this.
You are beating a dead horse into hamburger...
You're opinion. Fact is I got it exactly right while you played
bait and switch to add to the confusion.
So, I have to repeat again, this AM revitalization plan says, "To make AM
service better, we suggest making this an FM service instead." In effect,
that's all I is.
As I stated from the beginning...
ON THE OTHER HAND, digital MW broadcasts could be a way of
revitalizing that MW band.
Once again, I ask that you justify this statement.
And once again, I struggle to understand what you're missing. The FCC, even
in 2013, was already well aware of the fact that AM sucks. Bad quality audio,
interference, etc. You have obviously never heard digital MW broadcasts (even
if you felt free to tell us that digital does not improve the audio quality).
You don't know. I know, because I heard digital MW. And I reported on this
years ago. Digital MW sounds astonishingly better than regular AM, and I'd
say as good as analog FM. This is listening on a decent stereo system, not
some boom box. Digital MW sounds excellent. By removing the 35 db below
analog power restriction (in hybrid mode), it could become a viable service,
with extended nighttime range, with far less nighttime interference than AM
(which makes analog AM so bad it's practically unusable at night), and not
restricted to use by only a couple of political loud-mouths.
Nobody is saying that AM digital does not work. As you clearly understand from
your own experience, AM digital works just fine. Unlike yourself, however,
consumers have largely ignored this "improved technology." As the FCC order
clearly notes, other technologies are devouring the market share once enjoyed
by broadcast radio - AM Digital didn't stand a chance without a government
mandate, like the one used to enrich the companies behind ATSC 1.0.
In the face of these technology shifts, maximizing the use of the FM band makes
good sense. It is a technically superior service to analog AM; and Consumer
reports tells us that Am digital resembles the quality of analog FM.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2011/01/hd-radio/index.htm
At its best, HD Radio pushes FM sound quality closer to that of CDs and makes
AM broadcasts resemble those of analog FM.
So why bother?
Radio, just like OTA TV, is handicapped by lack of choice, compared with
competing media of today. Allowing the MW band to decay into total disuse is
not a formula for allowing "revitalization" of anything. It instead only make
matters worse, overall, for radio.
A total disconnect within you mind. There are a mountain of new technologies
that go nowhere - technology enables business models, it does not assure their
success.
I was a strong advocate for properly defined 480/576P digital TV formats (which
are used extensively today on the Internet). NTV was operating a 480P broadcast
service in Japan, demonstrating it side-by-side with 1080i at several NAB
conventions. Truth is it looked too good - almost as good as the legacy NHK
1125/60 analog HDTV format.
So the CE companies made certain that those formats would never see the light
of day in their new ATSC broadcast standard. They understood that they would
enjoy a government mandate to deploy their preferred HDTV format (1080i), which
is now dying...
Radio is doing just fine. The radio audience has not declined to anywhere near
the extent of the broadcast TV networks audience, which is now a shadow of its
former self (less than 30% of the audience during prime time). For TV improved
choice is certainly a major factor. But radio is also challenged by improved
choice.
This report is from 2012, but it does a good job of illustrating where radio
fits into the changing landscape of audible communications.
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/audio-how-far-will-digital-go/audio-by-the-numbers/
Please note the section on HD radio.
Broadcast radio survives because it provides local communities with a useful
service, not to mention the most dependable mass communications service during
times of emergencies.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- McDonald, J Douglas
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- McDonald, J Douglas
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: FCC on AM revitalization- Craig Birkmaier