It's just a matter of time. As techonlogy marches on and older analog equipment used for broadcasting becomes more obsolete, it will be replaced by digital in more areas, also making it more affordable and reliable in the long run.cardingtr said:
Interesting. Does he think the problem can be resolved?frostyra said:FWIW -- The chief engineer at the FM station I work part-time at says that the system (called IBOC) will cause much more interference between nearby adjacent-channel (or 2nd adjacent) stations (those within .2 or .4 MHz of the station you want to listen to). Normal analog FM has little in the way of sidebands; IBOC depends on them.
Not competition ? Now that's good stuff. I bet that's what the satellite reps are saying. This really isn't about sound but about adding in sidecasts, audio on demand, navi traffic info and data streaming. More "sub-frequencies" means more tweaking of programming to different demographics and better targeted reach for advertisers. The number of commercials could go down even more. Best of all, it's free free free.04mdx4sq said:I still don't see it as real competition for satellite radio, most if not all of my customers looking in to sat radio are looking at the absence of commercials more so than sound quality. The "digital FM" will likely carry the same content including commercials. After all, someone has to pay for it, wether it is the sat radio customer paying a subscription or the advertisers buying up commercial time.
I'm sure all of this will stay free, as that is how business' make money. Last time I checked, broadcasting companies still like to make a buck here and there.nightguy said:
The number of commercials could go down even more. Best of all, it's free free free.