Just Amazed

[RichardOShea]

You would expect an industry that reaches 90%+ of the population to be able to generate buzz about HD radio. Yet here we are almost 10 years in with little ground swell and a company just introduces a new product (iPhone 5) and that technology is already backordered. Makes you wonder not only for the survival of radio but for the survival of our industry

 

[rbrucecarter5]

You would expect an industry that reaches 90%+ of the population to be able to generate buzz about HD radio. Yet here we are almost 10 years in with little ground swell and a company just introduces a new product (iPhone 5) and that technology is already backordered. Makes you wonder not only for the survival of radio but for the survival of our industry

We should learn something else from the introduction of the iPhone 5. The long rumored and dormant radio chip is still not active. I put a lot of the blame squarely on HD radio, for partnering with Apple and insisting on iTunes tagging. If it were just analog radio, I predict it would have been active years ago. Even with poor reception because you can't fit an antenna in the phone, some reception is better than no reception.

But - the iPhone does do radio - iPhone streaming apps by the hundreds, with radio network apps like iHeart radio doing almost all the rest. The problem is - it is streaming not over the air. And there is no differentiation made between OTA stations and the the HD-2 channels, which are often named differently from the call letters of the station. They take on a life equal to their OTA counterparts - level playing field on the iPhone. Some ratings system for just streaming apps might uncover some trends that would lead to new OTA formats.

 

[mmnassour]

If it were just analog radio, I predict it would have been active years ago. Even with poor reception because you can't fit an antenna in the phone, some reception is better than no reception.

Maybe it would be for the broadcasters but certainly not for Apple. Poor FM reception would not have fitted into Jobs' definition of the Apple "Experience". If you can't do something perfectly, Jobs would have said don't do it at all.

 

[TheBigA]

You would expect an industry that reaches 90%+ of the population to be able to generate buzz about HD radio.

One thing I've learned is you can't sell people something they don't want. I don't like yogurt. I was at a neighbor's house and for desert they gave us all some yogurt. Looked like ice cream, and was covered in fruit. It looked delicious. But it was still yogurt, and I passed.

Keep in mind that the radio industry didn't invent HD Radio, and has comparatively little to gain from its success. Very different situation with Apple. If radio was still in the hardware business, things might have been different.

 

[tomservo]

I would argue that the Apple iPhone is to this day a flawed product (flawed differently than an Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone, but flawed nonetheless). If Jobs had a love of HD for some reason, it would have been in the phone and it would be the user's fault when it didn't work right. (Remember antennagate?)

The problem is that radio is a white bread appliance to that 90% of the people who use it. Radio is a toaster or vacuum cleaner, not something one desires, just something one has and uses and thinks nothing about.

That's not to say that appliances can't be desired; Toyota gussied up a Camry and called it a Lexus and made it work, Dyson makes vacuums and fans that have a following. Even some radio stations garner fervant fans (witness the death and copy-rebirth of my local CHR WABB in Mobile for example). But by and large HD was a widget to an appliance that no one saw a need for.

 

[spunker88]

The problem is many in the next generation doesnt listen to broadcast radio at all. When asked why its usually because the type of music they like isn't played or the playlists on radio are too small. Some of that I can agree with look at the many classic rock stations that repeat the same songs when there is decades of good classic rock out there. The answer to this dilemma for people nowadays is to either stream music over the internet, or fill up their MP3 player with music.

The novelty of iTunes tagging became obsolete when smartphone apps like Shazam showed up which allow you to ID songs from the phone's microphone. So even the title of songs played on an analog FM can now be saved for later.

HD will appeal to people who live near a station transmitter and have a format on an HD subchannel that is actually programmed well and unavailable in analog. Most HD subchannels I've heard have terrible audio quality and are just satellite fed.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem is many in the next generation doesnt listen to broadcast radio at all. When asked why its usually because the type of music they like isn't played or the playlists on radio are too small.

When asked by whom? Because the vast majority of studies don't support enlarged playlists. However, you're correct that young men can't find some of the more "expressive" rap they crave on broadcast radio, due to the lyrics. If broadcasters could play obsenity-filled rap by Drake, young men would listen. They can't find it on satellite either. So they go to personal mp3s.

But if all it took to get people to throw away their iPods and listen to broadcast radio was to enlarge playlists, every station would do it. There is no bias or hatred of large playlists. It doesn't cost more money to have them. But the larger the playlists, the smaller and more narrow the audience. Broadcasters have used their HD2 channels and streams to add more varied musical choices, and you can see how successful it's been for HD. Better programming won't get people to buy a device they don't want.

 

[diymedia]

Keep in mind that the radio industry didn't invent HD Radio, and has comparatively little to gain from its success. Very different situation with Apple. If radio was still in the hardware business, things might have been different.

The industry very much did invent HD Radio: USADR was initially a child of CBS and Gannett, which gathered support from other broadcasters throughout the late '90s. iBiquity took in multiple rounds of financing from conglomerates after the USADR/Lucent merger and borrowed liberally from their engineering staffs. Emmis is one of the companies developing the FM-HD-capable smartphone. And let's not forget about NPR, which developed multicasting functionality pretty much on its own hook.

If the industry has comparatively little to gain from its success, then why did HD's proponents lobby so mightily to preclude the consideration of other technologies nearly 15 years ago? How much of the technology's support stems from companies who don't want to see their investments go up in smoke?

 

[TheBigA]

The industry very much did invent HD Radio: USADR was initially a child of CBS and Gannett,

A couple of companies within an industry isn't the entire industry. In 1991, there were many new technologies being discussed. Another was satellite radio, and some OTA radio companies were involved there too. But it wasn't an industry thing.

Of course Apple isn't representative of the entire computer industry either. They just happen to be the biggest player right now. But as I said, the radio industry isn't in the consumer hardware business, and there's nothing the radio industry can do about the fact that the consumer electronics industry hates broadcast radio.

 

[TheBigA]

If the industry has comparatively little to gain from its success, then why did HD's proponents lobby so mightily to preclude the consideration of other technologies nearly 15 years ago?

How much lobbying have you seen them do lately? I would bet that any investments made in iBiquity were written down a long time ago. And it's pretty obvious when you look at the actions of all these companies that their view on HD radio has changed in the last five years. Although they may not publicly talk about it.

 

[DavidEduardo]

If the industry has comparatively little to gain from its success, then why did HD's proponents lobby so mightily to preclude the consideration of other technologies nearly 15 years ago? How much of the technology's support stems from companies who don't want to see their investments go up in smoke?

The radio industry investments made up what might be called "seed capital" and got iBiquity going with a display of industry support. The bulk of financing came from venture capital / investment banking interests.

The investments by the radio companies were small enough they can be or may already have been written off with no impact.

The reason why there was so much support for iBiquity was the fact that the multi-system episode with AM stereo proved that "dueling technology" would take too long and not have a good outcome.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The problem is many in the next generation doesnt listen to broadcast radio at all.

You are confusing the delivery method with content. What is losing appeal is the "tower and transmitter" system, not the basic concept of produced (as opposed to "random") content.

 

[diymedia]

How much lobbying have you seen them do lately? I would bet that any investments made in iBiquity were written down a long time ago. And it's pretty obvious when you look at the actions of all these companies that their view on HD radio has changed in the last five years. Although they may not publicly talk about it.

I completely agree. What made HD fly was proponents convincing the FCC that the companies who controlled the majority of industry revenue equated to "industry support." Pubcasters played an important role by legitimizing this notion. I fault the narrow perspective of policymakers here, who pretty much limit themselves to economic justifications alone for what they do. In this case (as in many others), it's a faulty metric.

 

[TheBigA]

I fault the narrow perspective of policymakers here, who pretty much limit themselves to economic justifications alone for what they do. In this case (as in many others), it's a faulty metric.

You would have prefered the methodology they used with AM Stereo? Or the methodology they used with Docket 80-90?

 

[diymedia]

I fault the narrow perspective of policymakers here, who pretty much limit themselves to economic justifications alone for what they do. In this case (as in many others), it's a faulty metric.

You would have prefered the methodology they used with AM Stereo? Or the methodology they used with Docket 80-90?

What, exactly, are you driving at? Both of the cases you mention involved politics and economics trumping engineering. I think we can agree that FCC policymaking is f'ed up.

In somewhat related news, iBiquity is a finalist for a new CEA "innovation" award. I know the award itself is meaningless, but can't help the irony.

 

[TheBigA]

What, exactly, are you driving at? Both of the cases you mention involved politics and economics trumping engineering. I think we can agree that FCC policymaking is f'ed up.

And has been for 50 years. Some might say that politics and economics were the reason why the FCC was created in the first place, to force out amateur radio people in the 1920s. So we all know the rules and how the game is played. Why hasn't anyone been smart enough to trick the system to get something done right?

 

[diymedia]

What, exactly, are you driving at? Both of the cases you mention involved politics and economics trumping engineering. I think we can agree that FCC policymaking is f'ed up.

And has been for 50 years. Some might say that politics and economics were the reason why the FCC was created in the first place, to force out amateur radio people in the 1920s. So we all know the rules and how the game is played. Why hasn't anyone been smart enough to trick the system to get something done right?

Hard to play a game when the rules are skewed against the individual, much less the nebulous "public interest."

 

[TheBigA]

Hard to play a game when the rules are skewed against the individual, much less the nebulous "public interest."

That's why people form coalitions.

 

[satech]

Remember that there was "competition" between two slightly different IBOC systems, proposed by Lucent and USADR (USA Digital Radio). Eventually the two systems were merged into one, creating iBiquity. Here's some early IBOC history from the book "Regulating the Future: Broadcasting Technology and Governmental Control":

http://books.google.com/books?id=4R..._0QH_9YGwCQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&f=false