Since the advent of satellite radio, terrestrial radio stations have closely monitored their market share in order to asses the “damages” the new format has caused. Land based stations came to the conclusion that satellite radio isn't going away, and the nearly ad-free format is attracting an ever increasing number of listeners. The two have a potential to exist together, much like cable and network TV. But a much more likely scenario is that because of ad saturation and severely repetitive song catalogs, terrestrial radio will soon die out. In response, many land based stations are offering a new service called Hybrid Digital or HD radio. (That's right: not high definition radio, as some uninformed consumers have called it).

HD radio is a digital signal that requires a special digital receiver. Most cities already have the technology in place to offer Hybrid Digital radio. The reason why many people haven't heard of it is because the receivers are just now entering the market place. One advantage of HD radio is immediately apparent: although consumers need to spend money to upgrade their current hardware, the receiver is a one-time expense rather than a monthly subscription service. Also, HD radio stations are able to offer localized programming. This means local news, weather, and traffic reports can be readily available to listeners. Another benefit is the alternate programming offered on substations.

Most terrestrial radio stations that offer HD radio have one or more “substations” that have alternate programming. For example, a country station may have it's original programming, plus a “classic” country substation. These substations tend to be much less ad saturated than the original stations, resembling satellite radio. Furthermore, while satellite radio offers only a 40kbps bitrate, HD radio boasts a huge 96kbps bitrate per station.

While HD seems to have a lot to offer a terrestrial radio consumer, there are some inherent disadvantages. An HD station's broadcasting range is only equal to the range of a terrestrial broadcasting tower. Therefore, you can't listen to the same station anywhere in the nation like you would a satellite station. Secondly, the programming capacity of HD radio still pales in comparison to that of XM or Sirius, and the FCC certainly won't allow HD radio to offer uncensored programming like its satellite counterparts. Also, HD radio only has a total of 96kbps per station, meaning if any substations are added, they could potentially be of lesser quality than satellite stations due to the shared bitrate.

A definite potential for HD radio exists, but many informed consumers fear that the sub stations will be just another avenue for ad saturation monopolized by Clear Channel (Live Nation). The main reason people are switching to satellite isn't the sound quality per se, but the massive programming options and access to many genres that are totally overlooked in terrestrial radio. The fact is, without the revenue generated from a consistent subscription, terrestrial HD radio still has to rely on their traditional ad supported format to cover expenses. This automatically leads to redundant playlists that strive to please the advertisers, not the consumers.
In conclusion, a clear winner of the “radio wars” has yet to be decided. But I'm willing to bet the format that least resembles a corporate machine will likely be the victor. In this case, satellite has the clear advantage. Remember, this is a war where the consumer has the power. Don't settle for ad saturated programming and top 40 playlists. Since both of these formats are relatively new, consumers can still influence and shape their structure. I hope this article has been helpful if you're currently trying to decide between HD and satellite radio. Happy listening!

The Future of Radio? - A Boston Acoustic Receptor Radio