Re: [Swprograms] Digital radio news

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm surprised nobody has already pointed out the perils of defining what
constitutes a placeholder format. Everybody seems to have an agenda these
days, and it would appear all too easy to define any given programming as
unnecessary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Swprograms [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Richard Cuff
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 09:57
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Digital radio news

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.