As one of the founding members of the Stop IBOC Alliance, I naturally have been more than vocal in my criticism of this form of AM modulation and its many demonstrated shortcomings.
It's no real secret that Radio World has been a staunch supporter of IBOC. However, Jim Jenkins' letter is a little on the unfair side — not to IBOC but to Radio World. Editor in Chief Paul McLane, while a supporter of IBOC, has gone out of his way to ensure that we who oppose it are given our voice in this publication.
If I have any complaints about the presentation in Radio World, it would be two-fold:
First, why not have an equal number of both pro and con IBOC letters in each issue? That would go a long way towards addressing what Jenkins sees as "propaganda."
Second, edit out the pro-only continued used of personal attacks against the anti-IBOC folks, as they serve no purpose in the discussion of the merits or lack of merits that IBOC offers. We who oppose IBOC have been called a variety of things from "dinosaurs" to "Luddites" — and always from people who do not know us, other than through our writings, some of whom do not even work in broadcasting. I have yet to see published a letter from an anti-IBOC person who lowers himself to the use of invectives against those who support IBOC.
Jenkins does make one quite good statement in his letter: "Sure would be great to see the 'radio trades' ask and answer those pointed questions." How about it, Paul?
Director of Engineering
Terre Haute, Ind.