Re: [Swprograms] Digital radio news

[David Goren <shortwaveology@xxxxxxx>]

Is there a prohibition for stations to lease their HD-2 and HD-3 in a manner similar to FM subcarrier stations? Otherwise, that could be a model. 

On the public radio side, HD is actually a good fit for stations that had bifurcated formats. Transition to single formats in public radio has been a very strong trend over the past twenty years...often to the great dismay of fans of the replaced programming. Now, a public station can have news on the main channel, classical or jazz on HD-2 and BBC or similar on three. 

I like HD from a listener's (not a dx'ers) standpoint. The ease of flipping through WNYC's three stations on one freq is cool. Plus, the Sony XDR series HD radios are wonderful. They're no longer made, bec. it didn't turn into a viable product for Sony as there is very little awareness of HD among listeners. In my own highly scientific personal poll, I have never encountered a non-radio person who knew what HD was...(outside of my beleaguered family.)


On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Richard Cuff wrote:

> Reminds me of the term "dark fiber" - from the telecommunications industry.
> 
> When long-haul fiber optic cable was first laid into the ground,
> expectations were that its transmission capacity would be sufficient
> for a reasonable number of years, allowing for a reasonable period of
> cost amortization.  However, the manufacturers of fiber optic
> components soon discovered ways to squeeze more throughput out of a
> given circuit, which significantly increased the transmission capacity
> of a given cable - far beyond demand.  As a result, parts of the cable
> weren't "lit up" with optical transmitters (or receivers), hence the
> name "dark fiber".
> 
> Digital audio broadcasting, too, significantly increases the
> transmission capacity of a given frequency (or given frequency band),
> but there isn't sufficient demand for stations to invest in any sort
> of "useful" format for these additional channels, as John suggests..
> 
> Perhaps what we need is some sort of "use it or lose it" requirement:
> If stations do nothing other put these "placeholder" formats on the
> subchannels, they lose their access to the channels, which are then
> offered up at auction.  Sure, the existing station could bid for the
> spectrum space and thus close out others, However that would overall
> increase the cost for the stations to "defend" their turf.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't see the NAB or other lobbyist organizations
> willing to support such a rule; their interest is to protect their
> current members.
> 
> RC
> 
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM, John A. Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> A personal take on the "drive for digital"... (Catchy, eh?)
>> 
>> Ibiquity arguably has the best technology solution here because it alone
>> addresses the blackout problem that occurs when the digital signal degrades
>> below threshold. However, like its digital brethren (DAB, DAB+ and DRM,
>> there's really minimal interest and demand for it.
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> 
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
> 


_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.