Re: [IRCA] AM vs MW-IBOC range differences

[Scott Fybush <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>This flaw is every bit as serious as will be the
>adjacent-channel interference in the early stages of deployment. It can be
>argued that the adjacent-channel interference is an unavoidable consequence
>of making the system work on the existing band with the existing
>allocations, There is, however, no similar excuse for making the radios
>incapable of downloading software modifications.

The problem is already manifesting itself on the FM side of the system. 
There's been a measurable uptick in the last few months of IBOC FM 
operations adding secondary channels to their programming. That's a good 
thing, by pretty much any measurement, as it has the potential to provide 
an immediate sales hook that might actually make people want to spend the 
$$$ to go out and buy a new radio.

But of course the small existing installed base of IBOC radios can't, for 
the most part, tune those subchannels, which is a problem.

 From what I understand, this is one of the big hold-ups to the widespread 
commercial availability of IBOC radios: there's not even an industry-wide 
consensus on how an IBOC radio should tune or display those subchannels, 
and until there is, manufacturers are reluctant to start mass production. 
It's been holding up all the table IBOC radios (Boston Acoustics, 
Radiosophy, etc.) that were announced months or even years ago but are 
still unavailable. The fear now is that those radios won't hit the shelves 
in time for this holiday season, which would be a major misstep for IBOC.

s

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx