Re: [IRCA] Wince-worthy IBOC praise article

["Craig Healy" <bubba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> As far as I recall, holding a different opinion to another person is not
yet
> a crime in this country.

No, it is not.  However, an editorial that was written well over a year ago
is irrelevant based on current events.  Such as Citadel dropping night IBOC.
Receiver sales being essentially zero.  Interference complaints based on
extensive and well-done signal measurements wending their way through the
glacial-speed FCC process.  A lack of additional stations adopting IBOC.
And so forth...

If a 15 month old flawed editorial is the best they can do, then they
deserve criticism and even derision.

And it *always* seems as if the standard response from the IBOC side is an
ad hominum attack on those who present facts against them.  Never are the
technical issues addressed in any useful fashion.  "When out of facts, begin
the attacks!" so sayeth the lawyers.  "...not yet a crime in this country."
indeed.  Tell that to them!

For example, the standard response to reports of interference is always a
denigration of DXers, or a claim that the "interference doesn't exist".  Or
that you shouldn't be listening to that station anyhow.  Bulldinghy!!

Another one that was clearly presented in that article is that people who
disagree with IBOC want to see AM radio die.  Sounds like a variant of the
old question, "Do you still beat your wife?".  Bulldinghy again!!

I agree with the desire to improve radio in general.  IBOC is *absolutely
not* the way on AM.  It's too small a data pipeline, doesn't get into newer
steel and concrete buildings, and is subject to ionospheric propagation
(DUH!).  And it *will* interfere with EAS reception especially after dark.
I do *not* want to see some victim missing an EAS alert because of IBOC
jamming.  Potentially lethal, yet I have *never* seen EAS and IBOC mentioned
together.  What about all the in-home EAS receivers in Tornado Alley?  How
many monitor an AM station at "DXer distance" because there are no
alternatives?

You want to improve radio?  Go after the items and equipment that make noise
above what FCC Part 15 allows.  The law is there, USE IT!!  Instead of
wasting huge technical resources on IBOC, put the money/time/resources to
work on making a new generation of DSP receivers.  Ones that can actually
have their firmware updated.  I'm sure thare is an algorithm or two that
would make a huge difference in received signal quality if they only tried.
Y'know why we even have IBOC in the first place?  Because the dratted NAB
paid heed to their biggest members instead of doing the right thing.
Digital radio needs a new band, not a crappy kludge overlaid on the existing
ones.  Take the British DAB model and run with it.  We're on the cusp of a
nearly universal cell phone-based internet type connection, so use it!

(harumph...)

And yes, Lynn and Pat, I'll shut up now.  You should (not) have seen the
first draft of this message...

Craig Healy
Providence, RI


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.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