View Single Post
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 5th 06, 03:31 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
Bob Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shortwave radio vs satellite radio: my perspective

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:03:55 -0700, running dogg wrote:

I don't listen to shortwave radio for hours at a stretch. At best, I'll
listen to a half hour of news on the BBC, and RHC's 10 minute news
bulletin-per night. I don't listen to much music. Now tell me again,
David, why I should pay $13/mo for something I'll only use for 2 1/2
hours per week (BBC doesn't have current events coverage on weekends)?
That's about 80 cents an hour. Pricey. I doubt that most people listen
to any more than one or two of satellite radio's dozens of channels.
When Howard Stern moved to Sirius, only about a third of his over the
air fan base moved with him, leading Stern to berate his former fans as
cheap. Satellite radio isn't worth the cost for all but the most
dedicated users. Considering that most people watch 6 hours of TV a day,
cable TV is cheap. But most people don't listen to the radio for hours
on end.


You don't really need shortwave radio or satellite, either, for BBC.
It's on most NPR radio stations daily, several times throughout the
day and/or night.

bob
k5qwg