Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ABC CITADEL AM STATIONS SUSPEND NIGHTTIME IBOC

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Pocke...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 12:49:04 PM10/2/07
to
ABC CITADEL AM STATIONS SUSPEND NIGHTTIME IBOC

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,82132.0.html

It's over for AM-HD - no sense in running it during the day, if it
doesn't work at night!

kimm...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 2:17:18 PM10/2/07
to
It's a start! Maybe next they'll yank the IBOC completely as it's
useless as tits on a bull on the MW band.

John Higdon

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 2:33:24 PM10/2/07
to
In article <1191343744.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Pocke...@gmail.com wrote:

Yep. I saw that one coming. Behind the scenes, the impression the
companies have had when it comes to nighttime operation has been quite
negative.

"HD" is finally starting to unravel. It's about time.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

Pocke...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 3:35:13 PM10/2/07
to
On Oct 2, 2:33?pm, John Higdon <skep...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote:
> In article <1191343744.179005.214...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,

>
> PocketRa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ABC CITADEL AM STATIONS SUSPEND NIGHTTIME IBOC
>
> >http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,82132.0.html
>
> > It's over for AM-HD - no sense in running it during the day, if it
> > doesn't work at night!
>
> Yep. I saw that one coming. Behind the scenes, the impression the
> companies have had when it comes to nighttime operation has been quite
> negative.
>
> "HD" is finally starting to unravel. It's about time.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

Yup, it was bound to happen, coupled with total consumer apathy
towards purchasing HD radios - AM-HD is starting to unwind! Now, from
Maryland I can start listening to WBBM and WSB again! WOR needs to be
next, because it is clobbering WLW.

jhardis

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 10:52:30 PM10/2/07
to
On Oct 2, 2:33 pm, John Higdon <skep...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote:
> Yep. I saw that one coming. Behind the scenes, the impression the
> companies have had when it comes to nighttime operation has been quite
> negative.
>
> "HD" is finally starting to unravel. It's about time.

If it does, then what? Would broadcasters be interested in DRM
(presuming operation on MW in Europe and consumer electronics
companies that are willing to produce receivers)? (See, e.g.,
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0048/t.4159.html) Or is the band
wedded to analog?

- Jonathan

jhardis

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 10:57:50 PM10/2/07
to
On Oct 2, 10:52 pm, jhardis <jhar...@tcs.wap.org> wrote:
> (See, e.g.,http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0048/t.4159.html)

I meant to point out that this article -- which seems so timely -- was
written two years ago.

- Jonathan

John Higdon

unread,
Oct 2, 2007, 11:10:44 PM10/2/07
to
In article <1191379950.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
jhardis <jha...@tcs.wap.org> wrote:

> If it does, then what? Would broadcasters be interested in DRM
> (presuming operation on MW in Europe and consumer electronics
> companies that are willing to produce receivers)? (See, e.g.,
> http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0048/t.4159.html) Or is the band
> wedded to analog?

Is that what broadcasting is all about? Which digital system we *must*
use? While broadcasting deteriorates as the corporate weasels withdraw
further and further from their core business (entertaining and informing
their audiences...for those who HAVE completely forgotten what it's all
about), running around looking for the digital holy grail is about as
meaningful as painting a sinking ship.

I don't givashit whether it is digital or analog. It first needs to be
something worth listening to. Then, we can luxuriate in worrying about
the wallpaper (or whether there is really anything to worry about in
that department at all).

Steven

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:41:12 AM10/3/07
to
On Oct 2, 12:17 pm, kimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's a start! Maybe next they'll yank the IBOC completely as it's
> useless as tits on a bull on the MW band.

Unless the bull believes it is transgendered. In that case the bull
would be well served perhaps.

c319...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 1:25:20 PM10/3/07
to
Here in LA-LA-land, the digital whine from KABC 790 was just annoying
enough to make KGO 810 unlistenable at night. To the KGO engineer who
posts here, please thank your corporate superiors for making this
move. It's nice to hear John Rothmann interference-free again. Let me
know when you are ready to get rid of IBOC altogether and I will
donate my time to come up and help you remove the equipment. I will
act as your lookout as you hurl it into the bay.

How many years was digital AM in development? After all those years
it's taken less than three weeks for a major station group to give it
the heave-ho at night.

John Higdon

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 1:40:20 PM10/3/07
to
In article <1191432320.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
c319...@aol.com wrote:

> How many years was digital AM in development? After all those years
> it's taken less than three weeks for a major station group to give it
> the heave-ho at night.

The only reason it got a push to go on the air when it did (back in
2002) was related to nervous investors who lowered the boom. Word has it
that iBiquity had been waiting on its applications to repeal certain
physical laws from the books. :-)

In the absence of that repeal, the disaster that ensued when a mere
handful of stations commenced nighttime operation of IBOC on AM was
completely expected by all of us who have had a modicum of experience in
these things.

Just as the US government predicted cheering from the "liberated"
Iraqis, iBiquity and its sycophants were positive that the grand
wonderfulness of HD would cause it to be embraced by the public, warts
and all.

Fortunately, the problems caused by this "solution" in search of a
problem can be eliminated by eliminating the "solution".

0 new messages