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?

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?

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:21:54 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote:

Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to
serve beyond their groundwave contours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel



It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the
protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile
radius around the transmitter."

It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far.


That's exactly what it says. And it calls it secondary SERVICE. That
is the opposite of ignoring because they can't be monetized.

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.

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.

"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.

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 !

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

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.

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.