Download SIDTG proposal comparison rev1

SIDTG proposal comparison – rev. 1
5/15/2017
Basic layered approach (“Kenwood proposal”):
Pros
Cons
 Easy to implement (i.e., easy to
sell to CE makers)
 Product available now
(Kenwood only)
 Consumers find new
supplemental channels easily by
seeking up or down (“accidental
discovery”)
 Matches AM style, so should be
acceptable to those with AM
investment

 Does not create the same
marketing impact as a new band
 (M. Bergman)

 (Commenter name
here)
Page 1
Comments
Basic separate band approach (“Cox proposal”):
Pros
 Strong “band” presence
(marketing impact)
 Promotes a pure digital band
(also marketing impact)

Cons
Comments
 Marketing impact somewhat
weakened by sparse band in
first years
 Some CE maker resistance to
“new band” expected.
 Introduction not expected until
2007 model year (need
transition plan)
 HD Radio seek time makes the
channel scan very slow. Finding
new multicast channels is
difficult without knowing the
address.
 Consumers must go to the new
band by manual button push,
OR, if new band is default FM
mode, must convert “old” station
frequency to new number
system.

 (M. Bergman)
 Scan time is the
biggest open issue.
 Can “IBOC Acquired”
time be improved?
Page 2
 (Commenter name
here)
Separate band approach, including main program service in “new” band:


Main program service audio appears on the band twice, once in its normal position (e.g.,
88.1) and once in the separate band (e.g., 200.1);
Supplemental program services corresponding to each main program service immediately
follow main program service in the supplemental band (e.g., for 88.1, MPS is also at 200.1,
first SPS is at 200.2, etc.).
Pros
Cons
 Better “band” presence than
Basic Layered (marketing
impact)
 Solves seek time issue because
analog audio comes up in the
gaps between digital stations
 Solves “sparse band” issue
 “Separate with Analog” has the
same behavior as “Basic
Layered”, except that it is
renumbered
 Including analog channels in the
separate band weakens the
marketing impact of the new
digital band
 Some CE maker resistance to
“new band” expected.
 Introduction not expected until
2007 model year (need
transition plan)
 Consumers must go to the new
band by manual button push,
OR, if new band is default FM
mode, must convert “old” station
frequency to new number
system.


Page 3
Comments
 (M. Bergman)
 (Commenter name
here)
Separate band approach, including broadcast program guide:

Program guide is stored in the receiver; when scanning or tuning, receiver only stops on
supplemental channels included in program guide.
Pros
Cons
 Strong “band” presence
(marketing impact)
 Promotes a pure digital band
(also marketing impact)
 Solves seek time issue because
new band doesn’t seek, it jumps
to the next location listed in the
Program Guide
 Program Guide becomes a new
feature for higher-end radios
 How to get the Program Guide?
 How to handle dynamic
Program Guide changes (like
driving out of range of one
station and into range on
another)?
 Marketing impact somewhat
weakened by sparse band in
first years
 Some CE maker resistance to
“new band” expected.
 Possible increased hardware
cost for Program Guide
 Introduction not expected until
2007 model year (need
transition plan)
 Consumers must go to the new
band by manual button push,
OR, if new band is default FM
mode, must convert “old” station
frequency to new number
system.


Page 4
Comments
 (M. Bergman)
 (Commenter name
here)
Separate band approach with periodic update scan:

Receiver periodically scans band and builds its own “program guide.”
Pros
Cons
 Strong “band” presence
(marketing impact)
 Promotes a pure digital band
(also marketing impact)
 Solves seek time issue by
forcing automatic, full band seek
periodically (once per month?
Once per week?) and displaying
“Updating Channels” as do
satcasters
 Can dynamically build the
Program Guide

 Takes about a minute to do the
“Updating Channels” (more for a
crowded market)
 Satcasters update maybe once
per month; driving from one
market to another during a daily
commute would require doing
this more often here.
 (M. Bergman)

 (Commenter name
here)
Page 5
Comments