In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show
you how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the
very intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no
urban area listening.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours. It really doesn't matter that you say 95% of all listening
happens within those contours.. if you do the math, that still means that
15 MILLION people do not listen inside those contours. That is NOT an
insignificant number, as you and the rest of your increasingly irrelevant
industry seem to believe.

In metro areas, the remaining 5% is generally inside the market, but outside
the 64 dbu or 10 mv/m signals of inferior technical facilities.

Yeah, that would be 5% truth and 95% BS coming from you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

Radio stations can not serve much beyond the primary coverage areas due to
many factors such as the inability to physically go out to outlying areas,
the fact that there are local stations in areas that are fringe to us, etc.
So we try to find what we can do to truly serve the audience in the area
where our signal is truly usable.

One of the things mentioned often in this and past exchanges is the usage of
radio stations way outside its primary service area. Even though the FCC
does not require we serve these listeners (and trying to serve their
different interests would cause us to serve less our primary area) there
seems to be a sense of entitlement by some.

Example: KPFK in LA, the Pacifica Foundation station, is grandfathered at
very high power at a very high Height Above Average Terrain. But by FCC
rules, they are only protected from interference to the extent of a
conforming class B FM, 50 kw at 500 feet. Yet they have 110,000 watts at
nearly 3000 feet HAAT. The coverage is many times that of a conforming
station, but only the conforming contour is protected.

A number of years ago, Mexico licensed a co-channel station in Tijuana. It
wiped out the actual useful coverage of KPFK in San Diego. But the Tijuana
station was totally legal since it did not affect the protected contour. Yet
there are posters on many web boards who talk about the Mexican station,
XHLNC, as being a jammer, a pirate, etc.

That's the difference between the facts (the way the FCC deals with
grandfathered facilities and the way XHLNC was licensed) and what some
listeners perceive as their right.

Closer to home, KLVE had a significant fringe audience in Santa Barbara, and
actually showed in the ratings because, at the time there was no FM Spanish
service in the market. But KLVE is also grandfathered, and had no protected
right to the coverage there. A new station was given the adjacent channel,
and wiped KLVE out up there. We had no right to be protected, and the local
community gained in format diversity. At the same time, with the outsider
out of the fight, a local station switched to Spanish, giving local service
to that group... so two groups gained local service while the outside
station no longer had coverage of the area. The listeners, though,
benefitted because KLVE did not serve Santa Barbara. There is no way we
could. It's a 2 hour drive to start. And anything musical the listeners
there might want would not be possible to implement if it meant sacrificing
the ability to satisfy LA listeners. Just putting in phone local service
would have cost thousands a month at the time.

So when it comes to metro stations serving distant or rural or fringe areas
outside their market, there are reasons why this can not be done.
Fortunately, with 14, 421 stations on the air, not including translators,
there is hardly a populated area without terrestrial service and there is
always cable and satellite and web radio, too.

This is why... to better serve the listeners who will listen... that
stations are not interested in fringe areas where the audience does not
generally contribute to local ratings and revenue. Considering that from the
mid-50's till the last study in the mid-90's half of all stations are not
profitable, wasting resources where there is no gain that helps a station
thrive or survive, is not possible and does not make good sense.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you
dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data
comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

"Bob Dobbs" wrote in message
news:4876f062.4582278@chupacabra...
David Eduardo wrote:

Irrespective of what you may think, the fact is that

You promised to killfile me, ya lying *******.

I don't killfile anyone. Never have. That does not prevent me from saying
that people who have to cuss in their posts are generally people who have
lost an argument and are swearing to divert attention from their feeble
posts.

David Eduardo, ye brainless unreal mock'ry, here comes those I have done
good to against my will, ye purled:

i have a rash for like over a year its is dark around my privates..
and leaves behind a weird colour on my underwere and it kind of smells
funny.. and i have not had sex yet or have been invloved in any sexual
activitys..please tell me what to do

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.
Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.
We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.

Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate.

Again, you've missed the point, making my point for me. You're so
determined to be right, you simply don't listen to what's being said to
you.

You asked why he refuses to believe....it's because you don't listen.
So, he doesn't, like the rest of us, believe that you're doing anything
but spewing the corporate line.

When someone asks you to listen, the correct response is 'okay.' Not
several paragraphs of liturgy.

Listen as much as you speak, and you may find that you're LISTENED TO
in return.


But you're not listening, so, I'll conclude, here.

Try reading it again. This time, pay attention to what's actually
being said, instead of what opens the door for more pedantry.

You asked why...now I've told you three times. So far, you've not
even so much as acknowledged what I've said.

Have a good morning, Pancho.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

'Eduardo', as the other poster stated, quite correctly in fact, you are not a
broadcaster just a master fabricator.

wrote:


Except there are some stations that are programming for the baby
boomer generation. So, why would they bother doing that if radio is a
dying medium??

What stations would those be?

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

No one was claiming protection to infinity.

Then to what point then?

Just enough so you can DX the stations you want?

The FCC has already decided to what point stations deserve protection....

And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

Again, taking your "iboc interference" argument to it's ilogical confusion.