Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. crfceo is offline
    crfceo's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 205
    07-09-2008, 06:50 PM #1

    Just say NO! to Ibiquity pipe dreams!


    Dear Commissioner Tate:
    iBiquity Digital Corporation, by its attorneys, hereby submits this ex parte filing to address certain issues you raised in our meeting last week. You asked iBiquity to clarify the exact terms of the condition to the XM Satellite Radio/Sirius Satellite Radio merger that iBiquity has proposed in this proceeding. You also asked iBiquity to address the cost implications of any
    such condition and the implications of Commission adoption of this condition. iBiquity has provided below additional information on each of these topics. iBiquity urges you to consider the impact the proposed merger will have on terrestrial digital radio and to ensure the public interest is protected by conditioning any approval as iBiquity proposes.

    Condition Concerning Protection of HD Radio™ Technology
    iBiquity previously provided the following language to the Commission as a proposed condition to ensure a merged satellite entity cannot use its position in the marketplace to disadvantage the rollout of HD Radio technology:
    The licensee will certify no later than June 1 of each calendar year, in accordance with the dates specified below, that any newly introduced satellite radio receiver model that operates with the licensee's satellite DARS system and includes the ability to receive terrestrial analog AM/FM signals, will also include the ability to receive digital AM/FM signals in accordance with the technical specifications for terrestrial digital radio specified in MM Docket No. 99-325. This requirement will be effective three years from the effective date of this rule for new model Original Equipment Manufactured ("OEM") automobile receivers and one year from the effective date of this rule for new model non-OEM receivers.

    Based on subsequent conversations with the Commission, iBiquity encourages the Commission to further clarify that this requirement applies to all receivers whereby the consumer uses the same tuning apparatus or display for both satellite and analog AM/FM radio. Only devices that exclude analog AM/FM (satellite-only devices) or devices with a separate satellite control and
    display should be exempt from the requirement to include HD Radio technology. The Commission’s requirements should be based on the consumer experience rather than the actual architecture of the device. To the extent that the consumer is using the same controls to tune to AM/FM and satellite or the consumer is viewing the same display with information about either
    service, the consumer is using the device to assess the relative merits of terrestrial versus satellite programming. In this case, the public interest demands that the consumer have access to a digital platform for both terrestrial and satellite services. The Commission’s rules should not focus on
    whether satellite technology is integrated in the same unit with analog AM/FM or if they are in separate units that are connected. As long as the consumer perceives them to be interchangeable due to common controls or display, the condition to include HD Radio technology should apply.
    This issue is dealt with in more detail in the June 9, 2008 ex parte letter filed by iBiquity in this proceeding.

    iBiquity estimates the cost of components to include HD Radio technology in most satellite receivers will be no more than $12-$15. This estimate is based on a baseband chip containing HD Radio software costing approximately $10, additional flash memory of one or two dollars and a small cost for nonrecurring engineering. The $10.00 baseband chip cost estimate is based on royalty reports from iBiquity’s licensees indicating recent sales in the
    marketplace as low as $9.60 per HD Radio chip. Even for less sophisticated receivers that might require use of a complete HD Radio module, component costs should not exceed $20. These cost estimates are based on relatively low volume orders. iBiquity believes costs will decrease significantly if this condition is adopted and receiver manufacturers negotiate with suppliers for
    higher volume purchases. Moreover, during the three year time frame before the condition is fully effective for OEM automobile installed receivers, iBiquity believes many receiver manufacturers will have adopted or moved toward adoption of software radios that will allow different system software to be flashed into the memory of the radio. This would reduce the marginal cost of adding HD Radio technology to the cost of memory and flashing the software.
    iBiquity believes any higher cost estimates are based on out-of-date price information, low volume component orders that contain higher per unit costs, or significant supplier profit margins that may be reduced due to more robust negotiations in the marketplace.

    Lots more!>>>>>

  2. zcurzan is offline
    Senior Member
    zcurzan's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 404
    07-09-2008, 07:09 PM #2
    Read through it quickly. Here are my initial thoughts:

    1.) They sure use the phrase competing a lot. About time they someone admits that we compete directly with terrestrial radio.

    2.) Almost right on cue with Newman's post and the discussions here on the board, they address the cost. Maybe I missed this in my skim, but I was a little disappointed they didn't address who pays that cost. But it seems that their numbers are in response to, and possibly low-balling other numbers that have been presented to the FCC.

    I honestly do not have a problem with iBiquity's plan if they intend to be the ones accounting for all costs including what they have estimated here, and any other costs that arise out of this. Then they are only fooling themselves if they want to play soft with the cost numbers.

    I can see the benefit to the consumer of having an integrated radio face that allows them to tune into satellite radio, or digital terrestial. Its a much cleaner user friendly interface. But to say that we have the ability to lock HD out of the car is rediculous. If they want in they have to pay. Not only should Ibquity be accounting for the cost of adding the HD chipset, but also should be picking up 50% of the costs we have incurred to get these OEM deals.

    Sign off on it already. Let the consumer vote with their ears.

  3. zcurzan is offline
    Senior Member
    zcurzan's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 404
    07-09-2008, 07:15 PM #3
    Oh and as far as how all of that would apply to the fairness of requiring HD in satellite, and not satellite in HD...

    There's no incentive for satellite radio to pay for their technology to be implemented into HD radios. If you are buying an HD radio unit, you probably aren't interested in satellite to begin with. They are not going to get a subscriber out of it.

    On the other hand, it makes sense for HD to pay their way into our technology, with the intention of picking up a pair of ears if they decide they dont want to listen to satellite anymore, or can no longer afford it.