Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 03, 05:00 AM
pete
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?


As a commodity, the HF spectrum can be more greatly exploited for profit as

a means of delivering data bandwidth than as a means of mass communication
or 2-way comms. Broadcasting via terrestrial MW/HF/VHF/UHF transmission
can be virtually replaced by broadband/digital, cell or satellite
technology anyway. Broadcasters look forward to the day when they can
mothball their multi-kilowatt transmitter sites and the engineers they pay
to keep them running. Imagine the savings in electricity alone!
I have a buddy who, thru his Sprint wireless internet connection, can
listen to RealAudio sites from his laptop while driving in his car. It's
just a matter of time!
Pete
KQ5I



  #2   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 03, 06:17 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"pete" wrote in message
news:01c38899$27465380$4c1588cf@verrando...
Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?


As a commodity, the HF spectrum can be more greatly exploited for profit

as

a means of delivering data bandwidth than as a means of mass communication
or 2-way comms.


MW/HF isn't much bandwidth. 30 MHz tops. As a comparison, the FM spectrum
alone is 2/3 of that . Or 5 TV channels. There's nothing favoring
broadband data transmissions on such low frequencies. Efficent antennas are
very large. Directional antennas aimed at one point source are almost
impossible. There's alot of interference from natural sources such as
thunderstorms. Radiated interference can come from halfway across the
state, or half way across the world. VHF/UHF beats MW/HF for broadband
communications on all counts.


Broadcasting via terrestrial MW/HF/VHF/UHF transmission
can be virtually replaced by broadband/digital, cell or satellite
technology anyway. Broadcasters look forward to the day when they can
mothball their multi-kilowatt transmitter sites and the engineers they pay
to keep them running. Imagine the savings in electricity alone!



OK. Let's say electricity costs 10 cents a kilowatt hour. A 50 kW
transmitter uses 5 bucks worth of electricty an hour. Imagine how much more
poor Rush Limbaugh could make if transmitters weren't bleeding the network
dry!

Now that I think of it, the real money would be found in creating automated
talk show hosts. One or two more advances in computerized vocalization, and
Sean Hannity is on the soup line.


I have a buddy who, thru his Sprint wireless internet connection, can
listen to RealAudio sites from his laptop while driving in his car. It's
just a matter of time!
Pete
KQ5I




Oh. What part of the HF/MW spectrum does it use?

Frank Dresser


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017