Talk:FMeXtra

List of stations broadcasting in FMeXtra?

do we have any/know of any? --KNXR?[1]

Too Biased

This article is terribly biased and bashes HD Radio twice in the first paragraph. This is not a debate club.--KJRehberg (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it is biased. Unless it has been changed since the 30th of September 2008. The article is only correctly indicating that FMeXtra currently has no upfront licensing fee and that it uses the subcarriers and not the sidebands to transmit information. The article also points out its limitations including lower bit rate and reduced coverage. Trupost (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When I saw that my impression was that if the article is biased at all it is biased against FMeXtra. This is the opposite of the original claim of bias. It complains about how a station would lose their existing subcarriers, which would be disruptive, that it doesn't work well with low power transmitters. I don't see the first paragraph as biased at all. Pointing out documentable differences like the lack of license fees and the fact that it uses subcarriers is not bias.74.94.229.218 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse 'sidebands' with the HD Radio mirror-image digital carriers. All transmission systems rely on sidebands of the CW carrier wave to convey the modulation information. This includes FMeXtra, which generates its own components within the sideband energy of the FM carrier. HD Radio, on the other hand, injects independent digital carriers on either side of the FM signal (which includes the FM sidebands), and is not in any way related to the FM-moduated carrier. In fact, the FM carrier can be turned off completely and the HD Radio signal will still be transmitted.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability from 2013 perspective

Does this subject meet Wikipedia:Notability? Supposedly existing since at least 2006, the system seems to have gotten so little use that it was re-named and nominally re-marketed as a non-specific "data" broadcasting technology. From its own website, it looks like even its company doesn't know what to do with it: The website has only 3 pages (2 of which are contact names). The prose on the website is pretty much devoid of any specifications, other than that it's something that sits at the edges of an FM radio signal. It doesn't even explain what sort of data speeds are involved, except for the meaningless phrase "high-bandwidth", which was probably a ridiculous exaggeration even when it was written, let alone now, if the unsourced claims on this Wikipedia article are any indication: 40 kilobits/second on a stereo FM signal and 156 kb/s on a mono FM signal. It doesn't explain whether widening your FM signal to ±0.99 MHz is even legal in most countries. It doesn't explain why anyone would be buying this market for broadcasting data at dialup/ISDN speeds now. Are even the early adopters actually using this system anymore? Did it ever get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG? --Closeapple (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)