SFTV_troy wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy"

The analog FM is still there. So too are the websites, so rural
listeners can stream them off the internet. Heck, I listen to
stations in my hometown, and I'm currently 1000 miles away, just via
streaming.

Streaming is not DX. ...

Yes it is.

No, it's not. Get a clue little boy.

On Sep 30, 6:57 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...

Streaming audio certainly isn't DX, but I fully support Wimax and
internet radio because (1) they're going send HD radio into the
dustbin and (2) they don't destroy a huge swath of spectrum. Perhaps
after Wimax results in the commercial death of HD radio we'll get to
see something truly new and truly interesting pop up on MW.

At that point, there will not be AM... the spectrum will be used for
something important, like radio controlled plastic cars from Radio Shack.

Maybe you'll get lucky and it'll be all colloidal silver infomercials,
all the time.

craigm wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:


"

Streaming is not DX. Also, where do you think these rural listeners are
going to get broadband (hint: satellite internet doesn't handle streaming
audio for beans, since the backhaul is still via telephone modem, and the
lag doesn't allow for enough FEC... )

Can you explain "backhaul is still via telephone modem"?

Computers operate in two directions during internet access. Typically
the phone line or DSL or cable line flows both down & up across the
same wire, but not satellite:

DOWN - from the satellite
UP - via the phone line

So the down channel is broadband, while the up channel is narrowband.
The thing Brenda forgot is that virtually all of these AM websites are
optimized for phone line usage. I don't need broadband to DX to
California or the UK or Australia via my 56K modem.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving
you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

You are full of it. The development was announced and then news about it
went to zero. That's not a good sign.

We are aware of what is going on. That's all that matters; the idea is to
keep expanding the station count so more and more manufacturers will buy the
new chips and get the radios out in the stores.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are
universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

This shows you are a sham. You don't know what reception is like around
here AM or FM. You are full of it.

How does the fact that listeners measured by the ratings services show no
interest in skywave reception at all related to whether I know what
reception is like of not? They DON'T listen to distant signals, so there is
no need to protect distant signals.

The point you do not understand since you do not live around here is AM
does better day or night than FM. Even the low rolling hills on the
coast let alone the larger mountains inland make for very poor FM
reception so your arguments that FM sounds better is bogus. AM is
superior over FM around here at least. I'll bet you have never driven
route 1 along the coast in Ventura or LA counties. FM really sucks on
that road that runs along the ocean.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield- it today.

Or, the simple answer: there is a huge decline in the number of SW
stations, and also in SW listeners. Domestic SW, the nicest DX, is
all but disappearing and the quality broadcasters are reducing
schedules or suspending service.

Yeah like you would know.

You are in denial on this, too? How many SW stations did Colombia
have in 1967? And how many now? How many total SW hours does the VOA
produce today? 1967? How many SW transmitters and what powers and
hours did HCJB have in the 60's vs. today?

Now do the same statistics for FM. Colombia had zero FMs in '67, now
80% of the listening is to FM, of which there are now more than AMs
in the country. There is a migration from SW to Am to FM. And now to
digital.

Some have gone, some have changed, some are new. Things change so what.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Steve wrote:

Streaming audio certainly isn't DX, but I fully support Wimax and
internet radio because (1) they're going send HD radio into the
dustbin and (2) they don't destroy a huge swath of spectrum.


It doesn't? According to wikipedia, the EU has set-aside 300
megahertz of space! That's a heck of a "huge swatch" of spectrum. 15
times larger than what's allocated to FM, and 300 times larger than
the AM allocation.

I call that huge.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

But I think you are off the deep end because of your denial of
ratings, inability to see that if there is no listening of conseuence
beyond a certain signal intensity, there must be a truth there, and
your idea that knowing wave and propagation theory is somehow
necessary to understanding that listeners don't tune to weak signals.

Well you don't seem to know what reception is like around here on the
west coast and all you need is a portable radio to find out. Knowledge
of propagation is not necessary. You just keep on making crap up about
how hard or easy it is to pick up a station based on something you read
and misinterpreted on the Internet.

It does not matter what "reception is like here" because we can easily see
what kind of reception generates listening... and, as said before, unless
the signal is very strong, there is no listening generated. And beyond that,
we have the fact that AM generates very little listening under age 45, and
soon it will be "under age 55" and there will be no revenue to support the
band.

So the reality is you don't know but are guessing based on manufactured
statistics or stuff you read on the Internet. However, although you do
not have direct knowledge you feel free to tell me what I can receive
well or not. What a crock.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

David wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:27:54 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


I suppose it was my idea to discontinue the R8B? There was not enough
market, you fool.

I think what happened was that they pretty much sold one to everybody
who wanted one over the series' extremely long run.

As I recall it Drakes explanation of the discontinuation it wasn't so much the
lack of demand but other issues.

I'll have to contact Bill Frost and ask him about that.


I'll bet I'm right about the cost of producing the R8B.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

But I think you are off the deep end because of your denial of
ratings, inability to see that if there is no listening of conseuence
beyond a certain signal intensity, there must be a truth there, and
your idea that knowing wave and propagation theory is somehow
necessary to understanding that listeners don't tune to weak signals.

Well you don't seem to know what reception is like around here on the
west coast and all you need is a portable radio to find out. Knowledge
of propagation is not necessary. You just keep on making crap up about
how hard or easy it is to pick up a station based on something you read
and misinterpreted on the Internet.

It does not matter what "reception is like here" because we can easily see
what kind of reception generates listening... and, as said before, unless
the signal is very strong, there is no listening generated. And beyond that,
we have the fact that AM generates very little listening under age 45, and
soon it will be "under age 55" and there will be no revenue to support the
band.

So the reality is you don't know but are guessing based on manufactured
statistics or stuff you read on the Internet. However, although you do
not have direct knowledge you feel free to tell me what I can receive
well or not. What a crock.

Yes, 'Eduardo' is a crock. A full crock. He's also a fake Hispanic, AND a
pathological liar. He's been the latter for at least 50 years now.

I think his mommie taught him that one. After all, she went to the same school as
Hillary Clinton, so what can one expect?

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in
...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that
Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the
success of terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode,
and this year may be no-growth (although due to automotive and
mortgage / housing crisis situations) so it is critical to keep
the existing audience base, which the PPPM shows to be a 96%
reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash
mode.


I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a
valid point about

Snip

This is the guy that tells me what my reception is like based on
marketing statistics. This is the guy that calls me a lier when I post
about what I can hear, what programming I listen too, and that in any
even I'm not relevant to his work or life. This in a news group about
radio listening local or distant. The guy is a joke and is the only one
that does not realize it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California