On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:46:08 -0700, Roadie wrote:


DX liseners are focused not so much on content as on knowing when
signal propogation conditions will change to allow non-local stations
to be temporarily heard. They are interested more in documenting that
momentary catch than content. As a consequence broadcast stations and
advertisers really have no commercial interest in assuring their
signal reaches DXers.


DX listening is not necessarily done by DXers. DXers provided the
engineering departments with valuable feedback (and the occasional ego
boost). DX listeners are people who are forced to listen to
out-of-market stations because nothing local suits them.

2 completely different animals most of the time.

On Oct 1, 8:55 am, David wrote:

DX listening is not necessarily done by DXers. DXers provided the
engineering departments with valuable feedback (and the occasional ego
boost). DX listeners are people who are forced to listen to
out-of-market stations because nothing local suits them.


Hence the need for 3 or 4 channels/station on FM, to provide listeners
with more variety locally. That's what digital radio enables.

Allen wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:07 am, wrote:


Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still
Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their
waves to their local markets. There are still some people
watching/listening to them via the antenna.

If you watch TV on cable or listen to radio stations online, you PAY a monthly FEE


True you do pay $5 or $6 to get local channels. But that doesn't
change the fact that these are still Over-The-Air stations. You can
unplug the cable & still watch them via antenna.

As for online: I don't pay anything to access radio stations. I'm
listening to Radio Disney right now... that didn't cost me a dime.
The website radiodisney.com doesn't charge money to listen.

Neither does radioaol.com
Or shoutcast.com
It's free.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote:

I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not
stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the
internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia.

It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it
on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote:

I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not
stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the
internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia.

It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it
on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.
--

That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my
own posts included. It's about the challenge.

On Oct 1, 3:07 am, wrote:

I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not
stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the
internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia.

I wish you'd tell the hams in my neighborhood that the internet has
made HF transmission an obsolete technology.

David Frackelton Gleason, still trying to perfect the 'Eduardo' shtick, wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote:

I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not
stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the
internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia.

It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it
on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.
--

That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my
own posts included. It's about the challenge.

You just finally figure that out, oh faux one?

Now you've something else to lie about.

"Bob Campbell" wrote ...
"David Eduardo" wrote:
That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread...
my
own posts included. It's about the challenge.

But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a
"challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever.
They expect crystal clear digital video/audio.

Internet streaming gives them that, not noise, static and fading.

And people who *rely* on the internet are in for a rude
awakening. I think it is foolish to rely on the internet for
your primary telephone service, for example.

The internet is fine as long as everything is running
properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal
emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster
(hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone
service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone.
That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and
Amateur Radio communications, etc.

We're already seeing people give up VOIP as unreliable
whenever the internet hiccups.

"Bob Campbell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread...
my
own posts included. It's about the challenge.

But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a
"challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect
crystal clear digital video/audio.

Internet streaming gives them that, not noise, static and fading.

Internet streaming gives them buffer delays, choppy delivery, audio bit rate
reduction, small, pixelated images, audio/video sync slippage. If millions
tried to watch the same live internet video "broadcast" even at NTSC quality
(forget HD), the system would collapse.

Internet streaming is equivalent to radio broadcasting in the 1930s or
television in the 1950s in terms of quality and reliability. Perhaps given
another 10 or 20 years, Internet technology may arrive at the level of
reliability and ease of use that traditional radio and television
broadcasting has today. It will probably be wireless, too.

"Bob Campbell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote:

I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not
stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the
internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia.

It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it
on HF/SW.

Why? Because of the challenge/difficulty? Not everyone wants a
challenge - some just want to listen to a program. The internet also
adds crystal clarity with no fading 24 hours a day, not just when
"conditions are right"!

That isn't the point of DX-ing. If you never tried tuning in a distant radio
station on an AM or short-wave radio, you're probably not going to
understand what they're talking about. There was something exciting about
receiving a radio station from another state, or another country, that is
difficult to describe. Perhaps DX-ing is something from a bygone era. But
whatever it is you're doing on the World Wide Web is not "DX-ing". It is
simply the internet working properly.

Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.

Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it!
How dare they!?!

They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is
the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant
radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting
enough program information to write a reception report, and then receiving a
card or letter from the station confirming your report. Typing in a URL and
hearing the audio feed of a station over the internet is called "surfing".