Satellite Radio vs HD Radio: The Propaganda Continues
A spin-filled article on Radio World Online by Guy Wire (ugh) entitled Satellite in Trouble as HD Grows left me scratching my head by the end of the piece. It starts out by painting Sirius and XM as a fool's investment, stating that both are seeing "subscriber growth rates slow and begin to level off." Level off? I don't know about that.
He then goes on to build a doomsday scenario of how both companies are hemoraging money, facing regulatory troubles, and lumps satellite radio in with "any other high-tech venture that over-promises and under-delivers." Yet, all his points stem from events spanning the past 9 months. Nine months there "Guy."
At this point I'm waiting for the HD Radio speech. So far it's just been a satellite bash-fest... where's the meat? He instead goes on to talk about how terrestrial radio is the most logical savior of satellite should the auto manufacturers decide to cut their losses. In fact, terrestrial having controlling ownership would be the best thing for satellite! So the article now has turned from a satellite bash-fest, to a terrestrial love-in. Riveting.
But where's the point about HD? Oh wait, here it is at the end. Instead of filing HD Radio away with FM Quad and AM Stereo, which many are doing, he instead compares HD Radio to FM. FM started in 1961 yet needed 10 years to take hold, and another 10 years before becoming the "dominant choice for consumers," which he pridicts will be "the same pattern is likely to be charted by HD Radio."
So... in 20 years HD Radio will become popular? Hallelujah! Yet, the occurances of the past 9 months spell complete failure for satellite radio? Amazing insight! Do yourself a favor, keep your smoke blowing propaganda to internal emails there "Guy" - your rant just fell apart.


Comments
You have to respect the fact that he must say whatever it takes to save is job.
Posted by: iband | September 14, 2006 8:52 AM
"That's like comparing the rollout of FM stereo to that of FM quad. Music on FM already sounded good enough in stereo to most listeners while quad was deemed a gimmick for aficionados, little known to mass consumers."
this idiot contradicts his own point. HD radio is prohibitive to "most listeners" b/c of the cost of the equipment, and is relatively unknown to most consumers. If someone thinks FM is "good enough" for them to not by XM or Sirius, why would they spend hundreds more on HD just to hear the same crap, only in digital?
Posted by: delbert_grady ? | September 14, 2006 9:18 AM
Godwin's Rule invoked in a satellite radio discussion. That must be a first.
Posted by: Andy ? | September 14, 2006 9:46 AM
you are so right....hd is a joke man......i have sirius and i love it
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | November 11, 2006 3:47 PM
We now know, that with 75% of Americans aware of HD Radio, at some level, the number of HD radios sold each year, will probably decline:
http://beradio.com/eyeoniboc/instat-digital-radio-set/
To check on-going interest in HD Radio, which is flat:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd+radio%22
To check interest in HD Radio versus Satellite and Internet Radio:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd+radio%22%2C+%22satellite+radio%22%2C+%22internet+radio%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
Even after a $200,000,000 advertising campaign, by the HD Radio Alliance, the popularity of HD Radio, Satellite Radio, and Internet Radio, are just blips on the screen, compared to iPods and MP3s:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22HD+Radio%22%2C+iPod%2C+MP3%2C+%22Internet+Radio%22%2C++%22Satellite+Radio%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
HD Radio/IBOC is a farce - IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog. The HD channels are only low-bitrate streams of the same old repetitive material, and will eventually, contain commercials.
Senator Sununu, may put an end to FCC mandates, anyway:
"SUNUNU: FCC TECH MANDATES MUST BE BANNED"
http://www.sununu.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267281&&year=2007
Posted by: 700WLW | January 22, 2007 11:32 PM