On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:59:53 -0700, dave wrote:

Unless you are some kind of masochist why not just tune your AM radio
via the internet?

Ummmm....I can think of several reasons why someone would listen to
the radio using a radio and not over the Internet.

1. Maybe the station the person wants to listen to hear doesn't stream
its audio over the Internet.

2. Maybe the user is not listening from a locatiopn where an Internet
connection is handy.

3. Maybe the listener is listening to a sporting event (often the
contracts with radio networks for broadcasting of sports events
doesn't permit the broadcasts to be streamed over the Internet)

4. Maybe the listener's Internet connection isn't fast enough (often
the case for users who are on a dialup).

5. And finally:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

According to the stats on that web page, only 20% (1.3 billion) of the
world's population (6.6 billion) has home Internet access. Perhaps the
listener is one of the 5.3 billion people worldwide who doesn't.

JK

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:16:14 -0700, dave wrote:

John Kasupski wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:59:53 -0700, dave wrote:

Unless you are some kind of masochist why not just tune your AM radio
via the internet?

Ummmm....I can think of several reasons why someone would listen to
the radio using a radio and not over the Internet.

1. Maybe the station the person wants to listen to hear doesn't stream
its audio over the Internet.

2. Maybe the user is not listening from a locatiopn where an Internet
connection is handy.

3. Maybe the listener is listening to a sporting event (often the
contracts with radio networks for broadcasting of sports events
doesn't permit the broadcasts to be streamed over the Internet)

4. Maybe the listener's Internet connection isn't fast enough (often
the case for users who are on a dialup).

5. And finally:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

According to the stats on that web page, only 20% (1.3 billion) of the
world's population (6.6 billion) has home Internet access. Perhaps the
listener is one of the 5.3 billion people worldwide who doesn't.

JK

Dialup works very well for talk radio streams.

No it doesn't, and I can attest to that from personal experience.
Also, that assumes the listener is interested in talk radio (not
necessarily the case) and doesn't address the other four points
contained in my post. T which I will now add another point:

6. Perhaps the listener is interested in RADIO rather than some
digitized stream from the Internet.

JK

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.

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:


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...

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

On Sun, 4 May 2008 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have my own internet radio and i have a LARGE problem with finding
any users at all, that is why i keep on promoting it everywhere
http://azboradio.devushwebs.cba.pl/ . Currenlty i have one user
listening. the thing is with the AM radio is that ppl skip on the
shortwaves to look for radios, and there are usually 5. The AM radios
have a range of lets say 20 miles (im not an expert i mite be off by
miles)

You're off by hundreds of miles - and often thousands, especially in
the case of clear-channel AM stations at night..

and the internet is worldwide with over 30 000 + of private
radio stations.

You are deceiving yourself, in my opinion. I submit that there are
more people in the world, overall, who have radios than there are
people in the world who have computers and internet access.

Another thing FOR the AM is that when having an
internet radio you need to open a stream to every computer that means
if you are looking for an audience of 1000 people you need a 100mbit/s
connection which COSTS, incase of an AM radio its a wave which can be
received by as many radios as you like.
There is one thing for the Internet one, much better quality!!! And if
you have skill you can make a songs on demand system.

But people sitting in front of a modern computer already have that
convenience available to them. Open drive, insert CD, press play.

Things against the AM radio a

-costy equipment
-the fact that my parents wouldn't like me putting up a large antenna
in the garden

To broadcast it, yes. But not to listen to it. In fact, for listeners
the exact opposite is true. I can hear several clear-channel AM
stations at night using just a cheap $4.99 clock radio with its
built-in ferrite rod antenna. It's also a lot more convenient for
those times when I am not sitting in front of a computer.

The thing is that with internet broadcasting, before you even send a
single byte into cyberspace you have already limited your potential
user base to include only those listeners who even want to listen to
streaming internet audio in the first place. That's a very limited
number indeed compared to the number of users of traditional broadcast
methods, so your challenge is not only one of advertising to raise
listener awareness, it's also a matter of trying to come up with
something interesting enough to make them want to listen.

Music isn't going to do it. Anybody sitting in front of a computer can
listen to whatever music they want either by popping a CD in their
drive, or by downloading music in mp3 or other formats from any number
of sources that still exist on the internet. And talk shows aren't
going to do it because people can also get that on off-the-air radio,
and they don't need a computer and an internet connection to do it. In
other words, there are other ways for people to listen to what they
want to listen to that are a lot more convenient to the listener.

For these reasons, attempting to promote streaming internet "radio" in
this and similar forums strikes me as folly. We're radio hobbyists, we
are all about real (as opposed to internet) radio. We know exactly
what programming is available via on-air broadcasts that isn't
available via internet broadcasting, and where we can find that
programming. In trying to convert those of us who like to listen to
precisely that programming to a medium that does not and cannot offer
that type of programming, you're wasting your breath, and - in more
ways than one - your bandwidth.

JK