> 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 [email protected] 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: [email protected]
