Another Good Reason To Get HD Radio

« Blackberry Speed Typing Contest | Main | Looking For MySQL Gurus »

Another Good Reason To Get HD Radio

Most readers know I am biased on this topic by virtue of Flatiron's investment in iBiquity, the developer of HD Radio.

But regardless of my vested interest, I think there are a bunch of good reasons to get an HD radio the next time you buy a radio:

- HD lets you get the free HD2 and HD3 channels where there is a ton of great programming, all currently advertising free. Here's a listing of all the HD channels, including HD2 and HD3, in the NYC market.
- HD offers advanced data services on the radios, starting with things like artist, song, and title information, but over time including traffic, weather, and other real time data services.
- HD offers CD quality sound on the FM band and FM quality sound on the AM band.

But today, Don Imus talked on his show about another reason to get HD Radio. It turns out that there are places where you can't get an analog signal, but you can get a great digital signal.

Here's Don telling the story.

Comments (19) | Posted February 28, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology

Comments

"In-Stat: Digital Radio Set to Take Off"

"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level."

http://beradio.com/eyeoniboc/instat-digital-radio-set/

"Sirius, XM, and HD: Consumer interest reality check" (Alexaholic)

"While interest in satellite radio is diminishing, interest in HD shows no signs of a pulse."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/02/sirius_xm_and_h.html#comments

This just confirms, the lack of interest for HD Radio, on Google Trends:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd+radio%22%2C+xm%2C+sirius&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

"Rethinking AM's Future"

"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public summaries whether a station is on the air. Making AM-HD work well as a long-term investment is seen as an expensive and risky challenge for most stations and their owners. With the bulk of successful AMs airing news, talk and sports, the improved fidelity advantage of HD and stereo seem only marginally attractive. There is the significant downside of potential new interference to some of their own AM analog listeners as well as listeners of adjacent-channel stations. And of course we still have no nighttime authority for AM-HD."

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html

For now, HD Radio/IBOC is dead.

Posted by: 700WLW | Feb 28, 2007 1:49:50 PM

Yeah, I just don't the average person will care for HD radio. I mean - half the people who buy an HD TV don't even realize it's not displaying HD programming. If they can't tell the difference for images, I doubt they will for a slight sound improvement.

Posted by: Kimberly | Feb 28, 2007 3:51:17 PM

"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level."

How could they not be? I hear an HD radio add during my commute almost every single day!!

Personally, I listen to the radio for an hour a day during my commute. Mostly NPR. And no, it's not worth a new radio for that. But maybe, just maybe, if you spent a lot of time listening to a *radio* (who does that??!) maybe HD would make sense. I guess.

My real problem with HD radio is that (so far) the ads I've heard never explain that HD doesn't stand for High-Definition (it means Hybrid-Digital). Frankly, I think it's disingenuous to call it "HD" when the consumer *clearly* associates that the Hi-Def. When I first saw it, I thought "what is high-def radio? And when I learned what it really stood for, I thought some marketing wonk was trying to pull a fast one. It just leaves a bad ringing in my ears...

Posted by: Dave! | Feb 28, 2007 4:06:29 PM

Don't know if the tv analogy works just right. When you get a new hdtv you get two increases in quality.

1. Increase from having a newer, better tv
2. HD goodness

Maybe they think the increase from 1. accounts for both, but they are still noticing an improvement. I think folks would be able to tell the audio quality difference between the two, but I still don't think they would super care.

Posted by: Cameron Koczon | Feb 28, 2007 4:55:03 PM

Radio is dying and you're trying to high-def it? LOL... Do we really need better sound quality while listening to a radio in the car? Come on.. Who cares?

Posted by: hdradio is a joke | Feb 28, 2007 5:05:37 PM

I have to say... Not to many can tell the difference between HD radio and terrestrial radio. I have checked out HD radio and I find it hard to believe that the programming is better on HD. Mild differences but nothing exciting. The big question is... If terrestrial radio cannot produce quality programing then how can consumers expect HD to come through? I have also listened to Sat radio on a trial basis and I do think this medium has the most potential. They have solid programming. IMHO HD is better for eyes than ears.

Posted by: Jon | Feb 28, 2007 8:28:24 PM

Fred: Always watch your ear/eye on new trends, music, ideas...but think you are too close to the HD investment. I wrote to you yrs ago about Internet radio being the unlimited frontier and once the technologies can support it....who needs even satellite...post by Ephraim Schwartz;

I don't care if the new name for a merged Sirius and XM satellite radio is something like S&XM, its future is still doomed.

The news that XM satellite radio and Sirius satellite radio want to merge should come as no big surprise.

Despite XMs claimed 7.6 million subscribers and Sirius' 6 million, neither company has a made a dime. In fact, Steven Schwankert of IDG News Service reports that Sirius lost $1 billion last year on revenues of $1.5 billion.

The question is can two losing companies make a winner?

Under normal business conditions you might think yes. Once the infrastructure is paid for, duplication of operations and marketing are streamlined into a single platform and a single marketing message all the while subscriptions to the service keep climbing, it should over time become profitable.

However, the fly in the ointment is in this case Internet radio. While not a major force today, I see it evolving into a powerhouse as technology catches up to the concept of radio over IP.

First of all, the biggest audience for radio of any kind is during the work day while sitting at your desk. Why pay for that when you can just as easily tune in to the dozens of choices over IP with a high speed connection?

If drive time takes up another major slice of the listener audience Internet radio becomes a bit more problematic for now.

But think about where it is going. Either Wi-Fi or WiMAX in the car and access points along the highway and who needs to pay for a subscription?

Over time the promise of a mesh architecture where listeners' IP radio hops across the access points built into each vehicle to maintain a steady signal will mean the death knell for satellite ra-dio.

I think satellite radio was a good idea but it is a generation too late.

Posted by: Peter Stern | Feb 28, 2007 9:03:29 PM

Whats the benefit to offer HD programming commercial free? If it really is happening now it certainly won't continue, that is too much ad revenue lost. Is the only reason it is commercial free now because there are not enough listeners for a advertiser to pay up?

I agree with some of the other posts, I just don't see the market for this. The content just can't compete with sat. radio.

As for the post by Peter Stern, you are correct, when internet technologies get better who even needs sat. radio...but sat. radio is not dependent up sat. Sirius and XM can easily transfer content to a different method of delivery. They have a decent size investment in the sat. technology but I think their content is where they will make their money.

Posted by: Dan | Mar 1, 2007 8:03:25 AM

Jeez Fred, you're taking a beating on this post. Not completely surprised however. I figure if all of the radio stations in a market broadcast their HD stations and you pick them all up - you have a sonically superior satellite service - so if you already like satellite, an HD radio is worthwhile. However, the market has gotten so used to poor quality MP3's that the difference in fidelity and the cost of another $200 radio is simply not worth it to most people. HD is a good product, but it is not the savior of terrestrial broadcast radio - only the realization that radio stations need to offer their listeners the best programming and tools for every platform they interact with (be it traditional radio, HD radio, internet radio etc...)will ultimately save them.

Posted by: Harry DeMott | Mar 1, 2007 10:32:36 AM

If they can get it into new cars, they'll do great. That's the only way I see myself ever buying another radio again...the ones that come with the car.

I do think that high-quality audio like Fred is talking about is marketable....that's why they put Bose speakers in a Lexus.

I really dig the idea of advanced data coming in with the music/talk. Give me a button on my radio that let's me buy a song as it is playing (or request more info on a sleep number bed, for all you AM junkies). That's going to be a great way to monetize radio. I think. :)

Posted by: Andy Swan | Mar 1, 2007 10:52:35 AM

I have an unanswered question about HD Radio... do HD Radio receivers pick up traditional analog FM radio signals as well?

Posted by: John Zeratsky | Mar 1, 2007 10:52:51 AM

I find it hard to believe that Imus couldn't get WFAN in his NYC apartment. That station signal is so strong that you can hear it crystal clear in Connecticut. This sounds like a bogus story he made up in exchange for a donation to his "ranch".

Posted by: CD | Mar 1, 2007 11:26:00 AM

I have written about my feelings on the subject previously and as you know Fred, I very much value your insights on the world of technology. However, I think you have three major issues here. First, you ARE too close to this. Secondly, and not mentioned with much frequency is the fact XM brings new music to parts of the country where they've only heard country music and Rush. So what would HD-Radio do? Have Rush in better fidelity? No thank you. Programming will still be programming.

Thirdly, such technology will ostracize much of America where there will be a great reluctance to adopt to the new technology. My hunch is that only large markets will move towards this. In middle American, I would not count on it.

I hate to sound like a bucket of cold water, but the fact that the Big 3 are integrating this does not bode well. AM stereo was pushed heavily by them in the mid-80s. Does anyone even remember that? As a former counsel to a large company in the auto market I am quite aware of iBiquity's claims and the fact that they have a near monopoly on the technology. Normally, this would concern me, but I just do not see the technology panning out. Thus, if we are wrong and this grows into a multi-billion dollar industry, I will be the first to say "That's why Fred is so successful, he sees things where no one else does."

I, like most of your readers, live in a more urban area where we have good radio stations and we have HD Radio programming, but all you have to do is travel a little bit to realize that it is just a flash in the pan. When we travel, XM it is. I can have one station on form state-to-state. No other technology now, or even in the immediate future offers such "UBIQUITY!"

Posted by: Ted | Mar 1, 2007 7:57:20 PM

If it wasn't for the looming threat of widespread HD radio (quality) and internet-based radio (quantity), XM and Sirius would never merge. However, they will have the benefit of superior proprietary content compared to the other formats and the upcoming technological competition will be coming soon. My guess is that Sirius/XM will drop its satellite operation in five years and use internet-based radio and some form of HD radio as the distribution platform for their paid content.

Posted by: Ayal Rosenthal | Mar 1, 2007 11:29:04 PM

I could be wrong, I often times am, but I don't see it... I can't see satellite radio going backwards like Ayal mentions. First they would again become regulated and secondly the quality and signal continuity is lacking with HDFM.

Satellite's reach is so much better, it's not going anywhere...

Posted by: Dan Buell | Mar 4, 2007 4:54:24 AM

“HD Radio on the Offense”

“But after an investigation of HD Radio units, the stations playing HD, and the company that owns the technology; and some interviews with the wonks in DC, it looks like HD Radio is a high-level corporate scam, a huge carny shill.”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-03-07/music/hd-radio-on-the-offense

The FCC has just given away our free airwaves to a few corporate thugs, including iBiquity Digital Corporation. Especially on AM, HD/IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference, which I have confirmed listening to WTWP in Wash., D.C.- the digital sidebands are over-powering on 1490 and 1510 and would clobber any existing stations on those frequencies. Few HD radios have been sold, as consumers have not bought into this farce. This whole setup is just to the advantage of the HD Radio Alliance, as they own most of the 1,200 stations broadcasting in HD - the small mom-and-pop stations have lost coverage and will probably disappear. This FCC sole-source, non-competitive contract award to iBiquity is a total travesty ! Even though HD/IBOC is authorized by the FCC, it is still up to the marketplace to decide the fate of HD Radio - with little consumer interest, HD Radio will fail as AM Stereo of the 1980s.

Posted by: HD Radio is a scam | Apr 1, 2007 11:48:06 PM

I have an unanswered question about HD Radio... do HD Radio receivers pick up traditional analog FM radio signals as well?

Yes they do. The receivers can do everything normal receivers can. The only difference is HD channels come in richer than their non-HD counterparts and the stations can multi-cast additional streams on the same frequency. For me, those extra "hidden" channels are what make it worthwhile because I can actually listen to music radio* on the way to work instead of morning shows.

*Save the replies about infinate MP3 lists and sat radio. I actually enjoy the randomness and new content broadcast radio provides without paying a subscription fee.

Posted by: Nelson | May 14, 2007 6:37:03 PM

"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level."

How could they not be? I hear an HD radio add during my commute almost every single day!!

Biuro matrymonialne Rosjanki

Rosjanki - Oferty matrymonialne
Oferty matrymonialne
Ogłoszenia matrymonialne
Biuro matrymonialne Rosjanki

Ogłoszenia Matrymonialne

Oferty matrymonialne

Rosjanka

Biuro matrymonialne ROSJANKI
Oferty matrymonialne kobiet
Ogloszenia matrymonialne
Anonse matrymonialne dziewczyn

Rosjanki - Oferty matrymonialne

Dziewczyny
Biuro matrymonialne Rosjanki
Dziewczyny
Biuro matrymonialne ROSJANKI

Partnervermittlung
Biura matrymonialne
Ogłoszenia matrymonialne
Anonse matrymonialne Rosjanek