On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:13:16 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:

Dialup works very well for talk radio streams.

No it doesn't, and I can attest to that from personal experience.


That is what we call "anecdotal evidence" and it is unsupported by the
science.

Well, stick your head in the sand if you're more comfortable in that
position, then, but I was on a 56K dialup, which in my area resulted
in an average connection speed of ~48K and often slower, due to the
limitations of the local telco network. The results for streaming
audio left a lot to be desired.

You've still said nothing about the other half dozen points I raised,
so I'll assume you have no rebuttal. Ergo, we can conclude that
Internet streams are no substitute for live, on-the-air broadcasts.

JK

John Kasupski wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:13:16 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:

Dialup works very well for talk radio streams.
No it doesn't, and I can attest to that from personal experience.

That is what we call "anecdotal evidence" and it is unsupported by the
science.

Well, stick your head in the sand if you're more comfortable in that
position, then, but I was on a 56K dialup, which in my area resulted
in an average connection speed of ~48K and often slower, due to the
limitations of the local telco network. The results for streaming
audio left a lot to be desired.

You've still said nothing about the other half dozen points I raised,
so I'll assume you have no rebuttal. Ergo, we can conclude that
Internet streams are no substitute for live, on-the-air broadcasts.

JK

Ergo?

24 kb/s MP-3 sounds way better than AM radio.

On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:52:32 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:13:16 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:

Dialup works very well for talk radio streams.
No it doesn't, and I can attest to that from personal experience.

That is what we call "anecdotal evidence" and it is unsupported by the
science.

Well, stick your head in the sand if you're more comfortable in that
position, then, but I was on a 56K dialup, which in my area resulted
in an average connection speed of ~48K and often slower, due to the
limitations of the local telco network. The results for streaming
audio left a lot to be desired.

You've still said nothing about the other half dozen points I raised,
so I'll assume you have no rebuttal. Ergo, we can conclude that
Internet streams are no substitute for live, on-the-air broadcasts.

JK

Ergo?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergo

24 kb/s MP-3 sounds way better than AM radio.

Cool. Let me know where I can get live 24K MP-3 broadcasts of major
league baseball games, NFL football games, and NHL hockey games
delivered to me for free to listen to while I'm sitting a surveillance
at about midnight local time in a part of town where even the local
cops don't like to get out of their cars unless they have about 15
other cops around for backup.

JK

John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:52:32 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:13:16 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:

Dialup works very well for talk radio streams.
No it doesn't, and I can attest to that from personal experience.
That is what we call "anecdotal evidence" and it is unsupported by the
science.
Well, stick your head in the sand if you're more comfortable in that
position, then, but I was on a 56K dialup, which in my area resulted
in an average connection speed of ~48K and often slower, due to the
limitations of the local telco network. The results for streaming
audio left a lot to be desired.

You've still said nothing about the other half dozen points I raised,
so I'll assume you have no rebuttal. Ergo, we can conclude that
Internet streams are no substitute for live, on-the-air broadcasts.

JK

Ergo?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergo

24 kb/s MP-3 sounds way better than AM radio.

Cool. Let me know where I can get live 24K MP-3 broadcasts of major
league baseball games, NFL football games, and NHL hockey games
delivered to me for free to listen to while I'm sitting a surveillance
at about midnight local time in a part of town where even the local
cops don't like to get out of their cars unless they have about 15
other cops around for backup.

JK

I don't think they play baseball at Midnight.

On Sun, 04 May 2008 13:12:53 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:

Cool. Let me know where I can get live 24K MP-3 broadcasts of major
league baseball games, NFL football games, and NHL hockey games
delivered to me for free to listen to while I'm sitting a surveillance
at about midnight local time in a part of town where even the local
cops don't like to get out of their cars unless they have about 15
other cops around for backup.

JK

I don't think they play baseball at Midnight.

I am beginning to suspect that you "don't think" at all on this
particular subject, sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zones

I live in the Buffalo, NY area. When it is midnight local time, it is
9:00 PM on the west coast, the night games being played out west are
still going on, and the broadcasts of those games are still on the
air, not only from stations on the west coast, but also by local
affiliate stations broadcasting for the visiting teams back east.

During football season, the NFL's game on Monday night often runs past
midnight even if it's being played in New Jersey. Those games are
syndicated on national radio networks. A six-year old could find the
game on a $4.99 piece of junk clock radio...but of course he'd be up
way past his bedtime.

For those who want basketball, despite the NBA's deal with Sirius, you
can still hear plenty of games on AM. If the Celtics are in Portland
playing the Blazers, WEEI 850 has the game on the air unless it
conflicts with something, in which case it'll be on WRKO 680.

My personal favorite is baseball. Major league games are syndicated on
national, regional, and local broadcast outlets, which for listeners
with a real radio to listen to is FREE - unlike XM which requires you
to pay for it. Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Anaheim,
and Los Angeles all have major league ballparks and broadcasts of
those games fill the airwaves on any given night during the season.

During hockey season, if the NHL's Buffalo Sabres are in L.A. playing
the Kings, or in Edmonton playing the Oilers, or in Vancouver playing
the Canucks, I can listen to those games on WGR 550 in Buffalo, and it
doesn't cost me one red cent to listen to it on the radio in my truck,
no paying for XM/Sirius, no special hardware needed, no Internet
connection (in fact the station does not stream its Sabres broadcasts
over the Internet at all), no nothing - I just turn on the radio, park
it on the right station, and enjoy the game. And that's the way it's
supposed to be!

JK

John Kasupski wrote:


Ergo, we can conclude that Internet streams are no substitute for
live, on-the-air broadcasts.

John,

Let me respectfully submit that this time it is now YOU who is jumping
to conclusions . Internet streams (other than a few second delay) are
indeed "live" broadcasts and can easily be a 'substitute for a live
broadcast', depending on your ultimate goal.

Each has its place. One does not necessarily replace the other nor are
they mutually exclusive.

Yes, it is difficult to get a wi-fi connection in your car. Yes, there
are some sporting events that are "blacked out" on the internet.

On the other hand, if you are truly listening for content, have the
appropriate internet connection, don't want to put up with QRN or QSB or
IBOC crud or want to hear a station that does not have propagation to
your QTH, streaming is a fine way to go.

It's an un-winnable debate, as BOTH sides are correct.

73...

On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:55:03 -0400, Billy Burpelson
wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:


Ergo, we can conclude that Internet streams are no substitute for
live, on-the-air broadcasts.

John,

Let me respectfully submit that this time it is now YOU who is jumping
to conclusions . Internet streams (other than a few second delay) are
indeed "live" broadcasts and can easily be a 'substitute for a live
broadcast', depending on your ultimate goal.

Each has its place. One does not necessarily replace the other nor are
they mutually exclusive.

Yes, it is difficult to get a wi-fi connection in your car. Yes, there
are some sporting events that are "blacked out" on the internet.

On the other hand, if you are truly listening for content, have the
appropriate internet connection, don't want to put up with QRN or QSB or
IBOC crud or want to hear a station that does not have propagation to
your QTH, streaming is a fine way to go.

It's an un-winnable debate, as BOTH sides are correct.

That wasn't what the OP suggested though. His contention was that for
anyone who is "listening for content" that streaming Internet audio
was the only way to go. Is not a listener who wishes to enjoy the
play-by-play broadcast of a major league baseball game being played in
some city hundreds of miles distant also "listening for content"?

What about those who are NOT listening for content?

Maybe I just want to add another country to my list of countries that
I've DX'ed. Perhaps I just want to log a station from, say for
example, Pakistan. OK, as long as I get to log that station from
Pakistan, I don't really care too much what the content was, or
whether it's in Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi, or some other language. My
concern is to identify and log the station, and this is true
regardless of whether they are transmitting programming about
parenting in today's world or the latest anti-American pronouncements
from Osama himself.

Of course, it goes without saying that one needs an actual radio to do
this. Nobody's going to win respect and admiration from fellow SWLs by
posting a list of stations he has "DX'ed" over the Internet, anymore
than a ham is going to be awarded DXCC or VUCC for contacts made using
something such as EchoLink and/or IRLP.

That's the bottom line for me and, I suspect, for many radio
hobbyists, that in the final analysis, this is about radio. Internet
broadcasting is not radio at all, Even if it's a radio broadcaster
streaming their broadcast audio over the Internet, it is simply not
radio. No radio is used in sending it over the Internet. No radio is
used in receiving it. It has no more to do with radio than Diamond
Mine baseball has to do with an actual major league game.

JK