![]() |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:14:55 -0700, RHF
wrote: On Oct 1, 7:20 am, David wrote: - - Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected - to serve beyond their groundwave contours. - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel 1 OCT 2007 2 AM PDT - Twain Harte, CA -USA- http://www.ac6v.com/clearam.htm KMJ 580 kHz - Fresno, CA @ S9+20dB KFI 640 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+20dB KTNN 660 kHz - Window Rock, AZ @ S9+10dB KNBR 680 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+30dB XETRA 690 kHz - Tijuana, BNC @ S9+10dB KCBS 740 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+40dB KKOH 780 kHz - Reno, NV @ S9+20dB KGO 810 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+10dB 850 KOA 850 kHz - Denver, CO @ S9+10dB KOMO 1000 kHz - Seattle, WA @ S9+20dB KNX 1070 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+10dB KFAX 1100 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+20dB KSL 1160 kHz - Salt Lake City, UT @ S9+20dB KEX 1190 kHz - Portland, OR @ S9+10dB KFBK 1530 kHz Sacramento, CA @ S9+30dB Note - "Radio Locator: gives the Day and Night Coverage Maps for most of these AM/MW Radio Stations. http://www.radio-locator.com/ More AM/MW and FM Radio Information -Sources- * Mondo Times™ - The Worldwide Media Guide http://www.mondotimes.com/ * RadioTime™ the RadioGuide™ http://radiotime.com/about-us.aspx * Find Radio™ Stations http://www.findradio.us/ RHF's Radio Shack in Twain Harte, California -USA- SHACK INFO = http://tinyurl.com/2skmxm Shortwave Radio / Receiver and SWL Antenna Info . enjoy listening to your radios ~ RHF . No 770 KKOB? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote:
Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Eduardo wrote: "David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. Oh come on now. You can make them up, like you do with a whole host of other things. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 2, 10:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. - - That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. - A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to - listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of - license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. More d'Eduardo Thinking : Da Number Is Da Service -and- Da Service Is Da Number -and- U's Don't Count ! |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 4, 7:15 am, David wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:45:01 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. Then why do they call it a service area? You must be one of the current generation of "grownup" who twist words because you are bereft of substance.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - David, Like a Bull Services a Cow - d'Edurado Believes That Radio Stations {Media Corportations} Have The Right To Service The Public's Ears -and- Get Paid For It ! wass ~ RHF |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:45:01 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. Then why do they call it a service area? You must be one of the current generation of "grownup" who twist words because you are bereft of substance. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
RHF wrote:
Like a Bull Services a Cow - d'Edurado Believes That Radio Stations {Media Corportations} Have The Right To Service The Public's Ears -and- Get Paid For It ! wass ~ RHF . No, it's a lot more self centered than that. Radio believes that it has an entitlement to generate wealth by exploiting the public under a smoke screen of circular, semi statistical arguments. What Radio claims,...and I can speak with some clarity, here, having been involved in the process for a good chunk of my career, even up to this last spring,...is that what it does is dicated to by the public, based on focus groups, perceptual research, and music tests in front of listeners. And that advertisers and listeners respond positively. What Radio doesn't tell you, is that the focus groups are highly selected from 'desirable' listeners, as defined by advertiser requirements and expectations, and those focus groups of highly selected 'desirable' listeners, go on to form, or define, the essential language used in perceptuals that are used in determining the formatics, playlists and production elements of the radio station to serve the 'desirable' listener. Music tests, themselves are comprised of highly selected listeners to respond to songs, for the purpose of determining playlists to serve 'desirable' listeners. It's a closed loop. Created to meet the needs of advertisers first. And then attract the advertisers 'desirable' listeners to the radio station. Formats are specifically chosen to meet an advertiser's need. Nowhere in the process, is the concept of 'serving in the pubic interest' apparent. Even ascertainment, at most of the stations I've been involved with, has been done with a closed loop. So, Roy, it's a lot more than just a Radio believing it has the right to be paid for it's product. It's more like Radio believing the public exists to serve Radio and Advertising. And to select what will be and will not be acceptable for it's listeners, by manipulating its own research. Jim Collins, in "Good to Great" said the hallmark of good research is that it produces something that you don't expect. The hallmark of GREAT research is that it gives you something you don't like. Radio has neither been surprised, nor disappointed, with its research, since John Sebastian ruined KHJ. Listen to how David Gleason presents his case...all based on numbers that are highly selected, and highly interpreted. Numbers, which themselves are based on responses of individuals that are highly selected. Closed loop. He hears nothing but what he wants to hear, and he responds with canned statistical noise resulting from his closed loop research. Waht's interesting, is if you watch, when he gets asked for something specific, for which a canned semi-statistical response won't work, he just stops participating in the discussion. You can't get through to him. Nor does he recognize when he's contradicted himself, and made your own point for you. Which is kind of amusing. Because where Radio has dared to open the loop, risks have been high, but successes have been huge. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com