"But is 'availability' of HD radios the problem?"

"Chalk off one excuse from the pile of excuses theoretically explaining HD's lack of momentum... The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And one broadcaster reported to me that he asked an iBiquity rep how many HD radios had actually been sold as of the most recent accounting. And this was his answer: 150,000."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/04/but_is_availabi.html#comments

Conservatively, let's figure that 1/3 were returned for lousy reception and bland HD channel programming - quite an accomplishment for a $250,000,000+ shill campaign ! LOL !!!

The same thing was said about FM radio in 1960. Give it some time, It might just catch on like that new fangled color TV.

These are totally different times, with Wireless Internet, cell phones, gaming-systems, etc. Analog FM was something totally different - HD Radio is just glorified analog. There is no point to a bunch of mundane HD channels - the radio dial already has more than enough stations. Radio is meant to be analog - not of bunch of other data streams mixed in. This kind of stuff belongs on Wireless Internet, not radio.

Sorry, I was so excited that I forgot the link:

"But is 'availability' of HD radios the problem?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/04/but_is_availabi.html#comments

I can't imagine someone returning a radio because of bad programming, at least not successfully! 150,000 in sales is really pretty good for the first year, which this basically, is. Bring this topic up in another 5 years and the results should be decidedly different. By the way, I see that a station that has been running a format on their HD2, is moving it to the main channel as(I believe)you suggested.

"HD Radio is just glorified analog." - And your point is?

"There is no point to a bunch of mundane HD channels - the radio dial already has more than enough stations." - False. More variety is always better.

"Radio is meant to be analog - not of bunch of other data streams mixed in." -Delusional fantasy. "meant to" by whom, exactly?

"This kind of stuff belongs on Wireless Internet, not radio." - Why?

This optimistic 150,000 figure is for the past three years, since the first HD radio was sold in 2004. Just look at Satellite Radio - most listeners only use a fraction of the 130 - 170 channels, so more is not better. 150,000 HD radios sold, after a $250,000,000 shill campaign is pathetic ! Plus, the consumer go-to site for HD Radio is almost dead:

http://www.statsaholic.com/hdradio.com

Mr. PocketRadio

"most listeners only use a fraction of the 130 - 170 channels, so more is not better."

This is what is known as a non-sequitur. Please explain. Use logic.

True that most listeners only listen to a fraction of the channels. Lets say, for the sake of argument, 1/10th, or 10%. With Sat radio, 10% of 130 channels is 13 channels.

With analog radio, 10% equates to 2 or 3 channels. Which equals more variety, 13 channels of programming you enjoy, or 3? If each of those 3 stations have an HD2 stream, that makes 6. Which is more, 3 or 6?

Or do you propose that *reducing* the number of channels will result in people listening to programming they would not otherwise enjoy?

Or will they just turn it off/switch to a non-broadcast source? I think the evidence supports this option.

"most listeners only use a fraction of the 130 - 170 channels, so more is not better."

Why is this such a shocking revelation? Most viewers of cable TV only watch a small fraction of the channels available to them. Hell, since the end of the golden age of radio in the 1950s, most listeners have only tuned in to a fraction of the number of local radio stations available in their areas. Why should Sirius and XM care that most listeners only listen to a fraction of the channels as long as the subscription fees keep coming in?