| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Future of Shortwave?
What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50,
100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California |
What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50,
100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill |
Sidchase3 wrote:
What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. The FCC ban on domestic broadcasting will have to be junked first. I think that if a station like WBCQ came along owned by somebody who had a lot of money to challenge the domestic broadcasting ban in court (resources Allan Weiner doesn't have) the Supreme Court would have to rule the ban unconstitutional. Right now American SW stations are just sort of ignoring the ban and the FCC has taken a don't ask don't tell attitude. Nobody's actually challenged the ban in court, mainly because it would take millions for legal fees. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. Many nations censor the internet or severely limit access. Fidel Castro recently ruled that only people approved by the Cuban govt (ie him) can access the internet in Cuba. China has extensive limits on the internet too. We all know the famous quote that the network interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, well that's not entirely true. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill I think the main problem is that the components to make such a reciever are so expensive that it automatically prices the radio at $150 or above. When the price of the components goes down, radios such as this will become feasible. |
"Jeff Wilson" wrote in message om... What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. That's right. There's a huge amount of worldwide bandwidth now. SW is a tiny unreliable sliver these days. But I think bureaucratic inertia will keep the frequency allocations pretty much as they are for the time being. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California Radio hobbyists will still use SW in 100 years! There are few commercial sailing ships anymore, but there might now be more people who actually enjoy getting on a sailboat than ever before. The same could be said about horses, or steam locomotives or hand made furniture. Frank Dresser |
The serious flaw in this is that shortwave stations, by FCC regulation, can
not target a domestic audience. They are required to use directional antennas beamed outside the country and advertising that is only in the interest of a domestic entity is prohibited. "Sidchase3" wrote in message news:20040121100637.17062.00000521@mb- It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill |
Well, I see you're and older guy. Thought you must be. It takes time to
drive your head that far up your ass. "Leonard Martin" wrote in message t... Since I'll be gone in at most 30 years (probably less), it's a moot point for me. However, I will hazard a prediction that in my remaining lifetime HF will come to be used by no-one but a few extremely old hams and some religico stations that exist either as tax write-offs for rich people or as deceptions concerning "Spreading the Good News" intended to milk donations from credulous rednecks (who will of course have no idea what shortwave is, just like everyone else.) Darn! There goes the value of my radio collection! Leonard In article , (Sidchase3) wrote: What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
Was that nice CW? If it wasn't for us older guys you younger guys would
not be here. Your daddy should have been castrated before producing a mouth like that. CW wrote: Well, I see you're and older guy. Thought you must be. It takes time to drive your head that far up your ass. "Leonard Martin" wrote in message t... Since I'll be gone in at most 30 years (probably less), it's a moot point for me. However, I will hazard a prediction that in my remaining lifetime HF will come to be used by no-one but a few extremely old hams and some religico stations that exist either as tax write-offs for rich people or as deceptions concerning "Spreading the Good News" intended to milk donations from credulous rednecks (who will of course have no idea what shortwave is, just like everyone else.) Darn! There goes the value of my radio collection! Leonard In article , (Sidchase3) wrote: What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
Look at this fool's previous postings. You'll see my point.
"Walt" "Walter wrote in message ... Was that nice CW? If it wasn't for us older guys you younger guys would not be here. Your daddy should have been castrated before producing a mouth like that. CW wrote: Well, I see you're and older guy. Thought you must be. It takes time to drive your head that far up your ass. "Leonard Martin" wrote in message t... Since I'll be gone in at most 30 years (probably less), it's a moot point for me. However, I will hazard a prediction that in my remaining lifetime HF will come to be used by no-one but a few extremely old hams and some religico stations that exist either as tax write-offs for rich people or as deceptions concerning "Spreading the Good News" intended to milk donations from credulous rednecks (who will of course have no idea what shortwave is, just like everyone else.) Darn! There goes the value of my radio collection! Leonard In article , (Sidchase3) wrote: What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes, there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station unique. I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation" was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially. Political correctness would take a back seat. And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't like that. The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the dissemination of text as well as audio. Anyway, something to think about. -Bill -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States
is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
"RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" The ban on domestic shortwave dates back to the 30's, and was based on the FCC belief that the country was best served by the 1-A and 1-B clear channel stations (you are right... it has to do with clear channels) and that domestic short wave was not needed and would be an impediment to the growth of the clear channel service. |
That's crap and you know it. Some are already suspecting that you're an
idiot. I would think you would try not to prove them right. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
"RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" That's interesting. I figured neither the FCC nor Clear Channel had much interest in shortwave. As far as I know, the FCC isn't doing anything about SW programming content. And Clear Channel hasn't started up any of the SW stations. Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. That makes sense. Frank Dresser |
JW,
While GM could promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on 'one' Single Powerful Shortwave Station. (NOTE: It does not.) GM does promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on hundreds of 'local' AM/FM Stations. Plus 'local' GM Dealers also use local AM/FM Stations to promote GM Cars and Trucks. The current AM/FM/TV Station Broadcast Model helps to build local business and churn more money within the local economy. All Politics are Local and our US Representatives and US Senators plus our State and Local Elected Representatives are interested in a thriving "Local Economy." The FCC Does What Congress Permits. The National Economy is actual Hundreds of Regional Economies make up of Hundreds of 'local' Economies. WHATS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR AM/FM/TV BROADCASTING IN THE USA [.] Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting 'exists' to fill a limited business (social) need. If the FCC did not WANT (allow) [Nation Wide] Non-Domestic Shortwave Broadcasting then Dr Gene Scott and many others would be off the air. With the Advent of Domestic XM and Sirius 'direct' Satellite Radio Broadcasting; over time more domestic "Nation Wide" Broadcasting will develop for that media. TBL: Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting in Ten (10) to Fifty (50) Years will be what it is Today a Business Operating within its Limited Market. ~ RHF .. .. = = = "Jeff Wilson" = = = wrote in message . com... What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50, 100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there. I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long time. But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by. Thoughts? ------------- Jeff Wilson KG6RIF Los Angeles, California |
To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote
censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. "CW" wrote in message ... That's crap and you know it. Some are already suspecting that you're an idiot. I would think you would try not to prove them right. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
There you go again, proving your idiocy.
"RedOctober90" wrote in message om... To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. "CW" wrote in message ... That's crap and you know it. Some are already suspecting that you're an idiot. I would think you would try not to prove them right. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
"RHF" wrote in message om... JW, While GM could promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on 'one' Single Powerful Shortwave Station. (NOTE: It does not.) GM does promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on hundreds of 'local' AM/FM Stations. Plus 'local' GM Dealers also use local AM/FM Stations to promote GM Cars and Trucks. The current AM/FM/TV Station Broadcast Model helps to build local business and churn more money within the local economy. All Politics are Local and our US Representatives and US Senators plus our State and Local Elected Representatives are interested in a thriving "Local Economy." The FCC Does What Congress Permits. The National Economy is actual Hundreds of Regional Economies make up of Hundreds of 'local' Economies. WHATS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR AM/FM/TV BROADCASTING IN THE USA [.] Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting 'exists' to fill a limited business (social) need. If the FCC did not WANT (allow) [Nation Wide] Non-Domestic Shortwave Broadcasting then Dr Gene Scott and many others would be off the air. With the Advent of Domestic XM and Sirius 'direct' Satellite Radio Broadcasting; over time more domestic "Nation Wide" Broadcasting will develop for that media. TBL: Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting in Ten (10) to Fifty (50) Years will be what it is Today a Business Operating within its Limited Market. ~ RHF . GM promotes it's cars nationwide on nationwide TV programming. Car ads on radio are usually sponsored by a dealer or a dealer's association. There isn't much nationwide programming on radio anymore. When there was, there was also nationwide radio advertising. I don't see how much of this resulted from any deliberate government policy. Frank Dresser |
"RedOctober90" wrote in message om... To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. What's the evidence of that? And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. Will the government force NPR to sell out to Clear Channel? Frank Dresser |
He has no evidence. It is a product of his mind. It has always been
government policy to prevent any one, or only a few, entities from controlling the majority of the media. That includes newspapers, TV and radio. The reason for that was to ensure variety of opinion. We had a case here locally a year of so ago where, one of the two largest newspapers in the area wanted to buy the other. They had to get government permission to do so. They were denied. If it had been two bicycle factories, the government would have no say about it. The deregulation and buy up of radio stations is due to greed helped along by a president (passed) that had the motto "Morals? We don't need no stinkin' morals". "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. What's the evidence of that? And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. Will the government force NPR to sell out to Clear Channel? Frank Dresser |
But of course... your one of those "government is so nice and does
everything in the favor of the people.. awwwwwwww" Wake up. The government would never allow a WBCQ type station to get on regualr AM/FM radio, this is why you only find these silly neo-con "buy my book buy my tape type" You have some of these neo-cons who one day say "Bush is god" then another day "Bush sucks" These guys aren't really doing anything but spewing crap. But.. this is acceptable by the government. Anyone talking the realities would be quickly called a racist and booted off the air. "CW" wrote in message ... There you go again, proving your idiocy. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. "CW" wrote in message ... That's crap and you know it. Some are already suspecting that you're an idiot. I would think you would try not to prove them right. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
"CW" wrote in message ... He has no evidence. It is a product of his mind. It has always been government policy to prevent any one, or only a few, entities from controlling the majority of the media. That includes newspapers, TV and radio. The reason for that was to ensure variety of opinion. We had a case here locally a year of so ago where, one of the two largest newspapers in the area wanted to buy the other. They had to get government permission to do so. They were denied. If it had been two bicycle factories, the government would have no say about it. The deregulation and buy up of radio stations is due to greed helped along by a president (passed) that had the motto "Morals? We don't need no stinkin' morals". The government might have had something to say about the bicycle factories if the buyout led to a monopoly of the US bicycle market. But the whole anti trust picture has changed in the last 30 years or so for both bicycle factories and the media. I'm sure the competition from new media such as cable TV, sattelite radio and TV and the internet has changed Congress' and the FCC's opinion on the need for strict ownership regulation. Anyway, Clear Channel is making a profit now, but I don't think it's a particularly big profit. Despite running a huge number of radio stations, I doubt their stock will rise like Microsoft's did in the 90s. Nor do I think Clear Channel and the other large networks will be raking in the cash like the radio and TV networks did back from about 1930 to 1980. Let's not forget that some stations were going dark a few years ago. That was fine with me, because when I tune around at night I think there are too damn many stations, but Congress didn't ask my opinion. I did see the sense of the old restrictions, and if a radio station couldn't make enough money to stay on the air, they shouldn't. I suppose the modern Congressman feared taking the political blame if one or two small market stations in his district should go dark. Oh well. At least telecommunications act, or whatever they called it. didn't bloat the government or the deficit. Other legislation has been worse. Frank Dresser |
"RedOctober90" wrote in message om... But of course... your one of those "government is so nice and does everything in the favor of the people.. awwwwwwww" Wake up. The government would never allow a WBCQ type station to get on regualr AM/FM radio, this is why you only find these silly neo-con "buy my book buy my tape type" You have some of these neo-cons who one day say "Bush is god" then another day "Bush sucks" These guys aren't really doing anything but spewing crap. But.. this is acceptable by the government. Anyone talking the realities would be quickly called a racist and booted off the air. Is this limited to WBCQ? The Alex Jones Show, The Power Hour and Brother Stair all buy time on local time brokered stations. Bo Gritz used to, but he seems to be out of broadcasting. Frank Dresser |
Anybody with half a brain would look up facts. I guess you're at about the
quarter level. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... But of course... your one of those "government is so nice and does everything in the favor of the people.. awwwwwwww" Wake up. The government would never allow a WBCQ type station to get on regualr AM/FM radio, this is why you only find these silly neo-con "buy my book buy my tape type" You have some of these neo-cons who one day say "Bush is god" then another day "Bush sucks" These guys aren't really doing anything but spewing crap. But.. this is acceptable by the government. Anyone talking the realities would be quickly called a racist and booted off the air. "CW" wrote in message ... There you go again, proving your idiocy. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... To the liberal left it sounds like crap, since they promote censorship, and have no concept of free airwaves. You sound like a troll, calling me an "idiot" What have I written here that is wrong? It is true that the feds are afraid of someone using shortwave to spread beyond-the-fringe politics to a mass audience around the country. And also, they want Clear Channel to run American airwaves and only promote "governmentally approved" politics. "CW" wrote in message ... That's crap and you know it. Some are already suspecting that you're an idiot. I would think you would try not to prove them right. "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
The current situation has nothing to do with keeping stations on the air. It
has everything to do with who is paying off the politicians. Our government is, for the most part, for sale to the highest bidder. "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... |
So what is Sirius and XM?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:02:49 GMT, "Frank Dresser" wrote: "RHF" wrote in message . com... JW, While GM could promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on 'one' Single Powerful Shortwave Station. (NOTE: It does not.) GM does promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on hundreds of 'local' AM/FM Stations. Plus 'local' GM Dealers also use local AM/FM Stations to promote GM Cars and Trucks. The current AM/FM/TV Station Broadcast Model helps to build local business and churn more money within the local economy. All Politics are Local and our US Representatives and US Senators plus our State and Local Elected Representatives are interested in a thriving "Local Economy." The FCC Does What Congress Permits. The National Economy is actual Hundreds of Regional Economies make up of Hundreds of 'local' Economies. WHATS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR AM/FM/TV BROADCASTING IN THE USA [.] Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting 'exists' to fill a limited business (social) need. If the FCC did not WANT (allow) [Nation Wide] Non-Domestic Shortwave Broadcasting then Dr Gene Scott and many others would be off the air. With the Advent of Domestic XM and Sirius 'direct' Satellite Radio Broadcasting; over time more domestic "Nation Wide" Broadcasting will develop for that media. TBL: Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting in Ten (10) to Fifty (50) Years will be what it is Today a Business Operating within its Limited Market. ~ RHF . GM promotes it's cars nationwide on nationwide TV programming. Car ads on radio are usually sponsored by a dealer or a dealer's association. There isn't much nationwide programming on radio anymore. When there was, there was also nationwide radio advertising. I don't see how much of this resulted from any deliberate government policy. Frank Dresser |
"David" wrote in message ... So what is Sirius and XM? Right now, sattelite radio only has a small fraction of the nationwide influence that the networks used to have. Frank Dresser |
"CW" wrote in message ... The current situation has nothing to do with keeping stations on the air. Keeping stations on the air was one of the justifications for the telecommunications act of 1996. The National Association of Broadcasters says: "Today, the industry has rebounded financially but, just 10 years ago, 60 percent of stations were losing money. Many stations had gone off the air, depriving communities of the local service upon which they had come to rely." This if from: http://www.rwonline.com/reference-ro...tatement.shtml I prefered the old rules. It has everything to do with who is paying off the politicians. Our government is, for the most part, for sale to the highest bidder. That's another can 'o worms. The voting public doesn't pay much attention to what their representives are up to. I stumbled across a local public radio show in which each of candidates in our upcoming governor's race will be interviewed. Each candidate on the ballot gets a one hour interview. The interviewer seems well informed and asks the right questions. It's repeated several times. And it will have far less impact than a big money misleading political media campaign. Frank Dresser |
Wow...I think this is one thing that liberals and conservatives can actually
agree upon: Your theory is just plain dumb. Not only does this argument assume that U.S. listeners wouldn't hear shortwave broadcasts from overseas (which would obviously be unregulated by the USA's FCC), but the policy was put in place by the FCC literally decades before the radio conglomerate "Clear Channel Communications" was incorporated. Duh! -- Stinger "RedOctober90" wrote in message om... The reason for the ban on domestic broadcasting in the United States is that the feds tend to be afraid of the attributes of shortwave and the ability to transmit across an entire nation. They want Clear Channel to own all the domestic broadcasters so they can broadcast what they "approve of" Even though WBCQ isn't transmitting "domestically," it's still mostly listened to by people in the US. |
You make some good points, Frank.
Another thing that I believe is going to change the domestic radio landscape is satellite radio. Do you have XM or Sirius radio yourself, or have you talked to people that have it? To a person, every one of them that I've spoken with is totally hooked on it, and would not give it up for anything. And -- that's almost ALL they listen to in their vehicles anymore. This means the "free" broadcast radio listener pool is shrinking, and that trend will continue (very probably exponentially) with time. The paradigm where AM radio was for talk and FM radio was for (mostly) music had begun to shift a few years ago, as more talk moved to FM. I think the advent of satellite radio will force local broadcaters to: (1) have to jealously defend their turf on "local" content to survive. An argument has already begun over a "local traffic reports" channel on XM. (2) lead to more "narrowcasting" to target specific audiences (for both mediums) (3) lead to fewer commercials (but at more money per "spot") as commercial broadcasters become sensitive to competing with commercial-free radio. It's going to be interesting, for sure. -- Stinger "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "CW" wrote in message ... He has no evidence. It is a product of his mind. It has always been government policy to prevent any one, or only a few, entities from controlling the majority of the media. That includes newspapers, TV and radio. The reason for that was to ensure variety of opinion. We had a case here locally a year of so ago where, one of the two largest newspapers in the area wanted to buy the other. They had to get government permission to do so. They were denied. If it had been two bicycle factories, the government would have no say about it. The deregulation and buy up of radio stations is due to greed helped along by a president (passed) that had the motto "Morals? We don't need no stinkin' morals". The government might have had something to say about the bicycle factories if the buyout led to a monopoly of the US bicycle market. But the whole anti trust picture has changed in the last 30 years or so for both bicycle factories and the media. I'm sure the competition from new media such as cable TV, sattelite radio and TV and the internet has changed Congress' and the FCC's opinion on the need for strict ownership regulation. Anyway, Clear Channel is making a profit now, but I don't think it's a particularly big profit. Despite running a huge number of radio stations, I doubt their stock will rise like Microsoft's did in the 90s. Nor do I think Clear Channel and the other large networks will be raking in the cash like the radio and TV networks did back from about 1930 to 1980. Let's not forget that some stations were going dark a few years ago. That was fine with me, because when I tune around at night I think there are too damn many stations, but Congress didn't ask my opinion. I did see the sense of the old restrictions, and if a radio station couldn't make enough money to stay on the air, they shouldn't. I suppose the modern Congressman feared taking the political blame if one or two small market stations in his district should go dark. Oh well. At least telecommunications act, or whatever they called it. didn't bloat the government or the deficit. Other legislation has been worse. Frank Dresser |
"Stinger" wrote in message ... You make some good points, Frank. Another thing that I believe is going to change the domestic radio landscape is satellite radio. Do you have XM or Sirius radio yourself, or have you talked to people that have it? To a person, every one of them that I've spoken with is totally hooked on it, and would not give it up for anything. And -- that's almost ALL they listen to in their vehicles anymore. I don't have sattelite radio, and I don't know anyone who does. I've heard it on store displays. I dislike subscription services, so I haven't looked into many details. This means the "free" broadcast radio listener pool is shrinking, and that trend will continue (very probably exponentially) with time. There are limits. I'm sure I'm not the only person who isn't considering a subscription radio service. But it's never been easier to get a wide variety of recorded music, and it's never been easier and cheaper to make a large volume of personal recordings. This is real compitition for all the broadcast media. The paradigm where AM radio was for talk and FM radio was for (mostly) music had begun to shift a few years ago, as more talk moved to FM. I think the advent of satellite radio will force local broadcaters to: (1) have to jealously defend their turf on "local" content to survive. An argument has already begun over a "local traffic reports" channel on XM. (2) lead to more "narrowcasting" to target specific audiences (for both mediums) (3) lead to fewer commercials (but at more money per "spot") as commercial broadcasters become sensitive to competing with commercial-free radio. It's going to be interesting, for sure. -- Stinger We'll see. I think local radio still has alot of advantages in big cities. Frank Dresser |
"Stinger" wrote in message ... Ah, Frank, I'll bet you haven't yet purchased a vehicle that has XM radio already installed! That's how everybody's getting hooked. Trust me -- you'll try it out and love it. You will be assimillated. Resistance is futile.... ;^) -- Stinger Resistance is lucrative. Just think of all the money I've saved by never subscribing to cable TV. Frank Dresser |
DR,
Exactly, the Domestic Role that Shortwave could have performed in the USA has been Overcome By Events (Technology and Big Money). "XM" (GMC and others) and "Sirius" (Ford , Chrysler and others): Are Heavily Marketing XM and Sirius Satellite Radios and Discounted Service Packages as an Intrinsic Part of their Cars and Trucks Audio Systems. A Long Term Service Package can be included in the Sales Price of the Vehicle (Painless Purchase). Nation Wide and Someday World Wide Marketing is All Part of the 'future' Total Satellite Radio Scheme; just like 'commercial free' Cable TV and DSS. Ha Ha Ha - Oh No - Not Again ! Considering the the 'turnover' (Product Cycle) of Cars and Trucks; and the 'natural evolution' (Three Product Cycles) of common everyday acceptance by customers of Satellite Radio should occur within Nine (9) to Fifteen (15) Years. Bye Bye SHORTWAVE - It's Nothing Personal - Its Just Business ~ RHF .. .. = = = David = = = wrote in message . .. So what is Sirius and XM? On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:02:49 GMT, "Frank Dresser" wrote: "RHF" wrote in message . com... JW, While GM could promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on 'one' Single Powerful Shortwave Station. (NOTE: It does not.) GM does promote its Cars and Trucks "Nation Wide" on hundreds of 'local' AM/FM Stations. Plus 'local' GM Dealers also use local AM/FM Stations to promote GM Cars and Trucks. The current AM/FM/TV Station Broadcast Model helps to build local business and churn more money within the local economy. All Politics are Local and our US Representatives and US Senators plus our State and Local Elected Representatives are interested in a thriving "Local Economy." The FCC Does What Congress Permits. The National Economy is actual Hundreds of Regional Economies make up of Hundreds of 'local' Economies. WHATS GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR AM/FM/TV BROADCASTING IN THE USA [.] Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting 'exists' to fill a limited business (social) need. If the FCC did not WANT (allow) [Nation Wide] Non-Domestic Shortwave Broadcasting then Dr Gene Scott and many others would be off the air. With the Advent of Domestic XM and Sirius 'direct' Satellite Radio Broadcasting; over time more domestic "Nation Wide" Broadcasting will develop for that media. TBL: Non-Domestic [Nation Wide] Shortwave Broadcasting in Ten (10) to Fifty (50) Years will be what it is Today a Business Operating within its Limited Market. ~ RHF . GM promotes it's cars nationwide on nationwide TV programming. Car ads on radio are usually sponsored by a dealer or a dealer's association. There isn't much nationwide programming on radio anymore. When there was, there was also nationwide radio advertising. I don't see how much of this resulted from any deliberate government policy. Frank Dresser |
Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:02:18 GMT, "Frank Dresser" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . So what is Sirius and XM? Right now, sattelite radio only has a small fraction of the nationwide influence that the networks used to have. Frank Dresser |
"David" wrote in message ... Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past. In the context of nationwide radio advertising. But I'm not real familiar with sattelite radio. So, how much nationwide advertising is on sattelite radio? Frank Dresser |
For the pay services, none. Why would anyone pay for commercials?
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past. In the context of nationwide radio advertising. But I'm not real familiar with sattelite radio. So, how much nationwide advertising is on sattelite radio? Frank Dresser |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message t... Boy, you shure don't know liberals! A major aspect of the history of American liberalism has been the fight against censorship. :Liberals are hardly immune from the urge to censor. Some feminists have joined up with the Christian fundamentalists in the war on porn. There's "Hate Speech" codes to spare delicate minority feelings. Some civil rights orginizations want to keep books such as "Huck Finn" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" off of school reading lists. The old fairness doctrine had a few friends, and they were mostly Democrats. To be fair, there are liberals on both sides of each fight. As regards Clear Channel running American airwaves, that's the last thing we liberals want. Liberals value diversity of voices and localism, which Clear Channel is destroying. Was there ever much diversity in standard broadcast radio? I can't remember a time that there wasn't only a few popular formats. Radio has always been infested with me-too programming. Perhaps you've gotten our dislike of right-wing talk radio, with its content that always, ultimately, advances the economic interests of the wealthy station owners who choose it alone to broadcast, confused with censorship I haven't heard any of the talk show hosts calling for a ban on sattelite radio. Or limiting internet access, which would help broadcast radio a bit. Most of them thought the RIAA went way overboard in it's fight on file sharing, even though file sharing could be seen as a threat to established radio. However, most of the talk show hosts talk Republican. Limbaugh has alot of sucess with it, so the others copy. On the other hand, NPR lobbied against the low power community radio proposal. . Liberals don't like to see extreme concentrations of power anywhere, especially in the hands of wealthy people, who have shown ever since the 1930s that they, unlike you, know that their economic interest are almost invariably opposed to those of the mass of poorer people. Some liberals aren't much bothered by extreme concentrations of power. Plenty of 'em thought Uncle Joe Stalin was on the right track back in the 30s. I guess Fidel still has a few friends on the looney fringe. And they have never been hesitant to advance those interests, whatever it costs the rest of us (e.g., globalism leading to endless layoffs). Liberal Leonard Well, just to get back to shortwave, leftists make perfectly fine globalists. It was Maurice Strong who kicked RFPI off the University for Peace's property. Frank Dresser |
"CW" wrote in message ... For the pay services, none. Why would anyone pay for commercials? I don't know. I don't! Frank Dresser |
CW,
Look at the Percentage of US Household that have Cable TV or DSS-TV. All of them Pay-To-See Commercials along with Multi-Channel - E X P A N D E D - Programming Choices. jm2cw ~ RHF .. .. = = = "CW" = = = wrote in message ... For the pay services, none. Why would anyone pay for commercials? "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past. In the context of nationwide radio advertising. But I'm not real familiar with sattelite radio. So, how much nationwide advertising is on sattelite radio? Frank Dresser |
As of 1 February, XM will have about 25 channels with commercials (all
N/T), Sirius will have a few over 30. Neither has commercials on the music channels. On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:48:14 GMT, "Frank Dresser" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past. In the context of nationwide radio advertising. But I'm not real familiar with sattelite radio. So, how much nationwide advertising is on sattelite radio? Frank Dresser |
They get something in addition to the same tired horse**** that people are
generally looking for on radio. Play the top 40 and their satisfied. The difference between one station that plays the same thing over and over as apposed to the next station that plays the same thing over and over is the amount of extraneous BS you have to put up with. "RHF" wrote in message om... CW, Look at the Percentage of US Household that have Cable TV or DSS-TV. All of them Pay-To-See Commercials along with Multi-Channel - E X P A N D E D - Programming Choices. jm2cw ~ RHF . . = = = "CW" = = = wrote in message ... For the pay services, none. Why would anyone pay for commercials? "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... Yeah, but you spoke as though all national radio is in the past. In the context of nationwide radio advertising. But I'm not real familiar with sattelite radio. So, how much nationwide advertising is on sattelite radio? Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com