|
Digital Radio Mundial A04
A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM),
effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): 2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens SAT: The Vinyl Café SUN: Writers & Company Transmitter Sites: MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN (Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB; 2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD) ---------------------------------------------------- Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B |
N8KDV wrote:
A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): 2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens SAT: The Vinyl Café SUN: Writers & Company Transmitter Sites: MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN (Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB; 2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD) ---------------------------------------------------- Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B so you show me who is transmitting in DRM. but how popular is it here? Is there a list of mfr's who make the receivers? how about mod kits for receivers? Yes i like to hear BBC and DW direct in the night, but where is the technical stuff for drm? Rein Wiehler (canada) |
dont know wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): 2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens SAT: The Vinyl Café SUN: Writers & Company Transmitter Sites: MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN (Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB; 2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD) ---------------------------------------------------- Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B so you show me who is transmitting in DRM. but how popular is it here? Is there a list of mfr's who make the receivers? how about mod kits for receivers? Yes i like to hear BBC and DW direct in the night, but where is the technical stuff for drm? Rein Wiehler (canada) I'm sure it's all just a Google search away! Any other technical research I charge $100 per hour. You might email me for a quote. |
N8KDV wrote:
A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): : Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html |
Brian Denley wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): : Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. I don't believe in DRM... I myself hope it dies an unceremonious death. |
N8KDV wrote:
Brian Denley wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. I don't believe in DRM... I myself hope it dies an unceremonious death. Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html |
"N8KDV" wrote (A useful list for avoiding QRM!) 73, SL |
"Brian Denley" wrote in message news:gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54... N8KDV wrote: Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? Frank Dresser |
Brian Denley wrote: N8KDV wrote: Brian Denley wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. I don't believe in DRM... I myself hope it dies an unceremonious death. Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. I was referring to DRM on shortwave. |
In article ri69c.102901$_w.1322018@attbi_s53,
"Brian Denley" wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): : Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. It cannot sound better than what the radios have already. DRM can only sound worse. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54,
"Brian Denley" wrote: N8KDV wrote: Brian Denley wrote: N8KDV wrote: A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM), effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC): Writers & Company Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Steve: Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific. I don't believe in DRM... I myself hope it dies an unceremonious death. Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. DRM on short wave is not XM radio. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Brian Denley" wrote in message news:gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54... N8KDV wrote: Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it. -- Telamon Ventura, California How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting? Frank Dresser |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it. -- Telamon Ventura, California How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting? Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Telamon wrote: In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it. -- Telamon Ventura, California How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting? Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? Very good point Telamon. |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists. If you're suggesting that DRM might somehow be part of a pay radio scheme -- well, maybe. But who would actually pay for SW radio programming? Most of us listen for the entertainment or the technical challenge. SW radio is also a secondary news source. Anybody who'd charge for SW radio programming should realize that's there's plenty of free entertainment, free technical challenges and free secondary news sources. Anyway, I sure wouldn't invest one cent in any proposal to try to make money off pay SW radio broadcasting. I'd rather go to one of those firing ranges that lets you shoot bowling pins with a Tommy gun. Not only would that be much more entertaining, it would probably be just as lucrative! Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? -- Telamon Ventura, California Because I don't think that controlling the audience has anything with the reason DRM is being developed. There isn't much of a SW audience as it is, and I don't see how anyone would benefit by slicing it up into even smaller parts. I think DRM is attempt to broaden the appeal of SW radio. This presumed miracle of digital modulation is supposed to bring high quality broadcast sound right into the radios of people who wouldn't have the first clue on what a sync detector or BFO is. By the way, I don't want to give the impression that I'm pro-DRM. I think the DRM scheme is foolish, but not evil. Frank Dresser |
No commercials! hehe
-- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? Frank Dresser |
Hey that's a good reason to get rid of Morse Code. Right? (ducks)
-- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "N8KDV" wrote in message ... Telamon wrote: Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? Very good point Telamon. |
No **** guys. But XM IS digital and, like DRM, has all the same audio
advantages. I was using that as an example that digital radio is here to stay. Geeeesh. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54, "Brian Denley" wrote: Steve: Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio. I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out how to get my R-388 to receive it. DRM on short wave is not XM radio. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Wrong. It sounds like FM. No noise or static at all. You either get
perfect reception or none at all. -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "Telamon" wrote in message ... It cannot sound better than what the radios have already. DRM can only sound worse. |
No **** guys. But XM IS digital and, like DRM, has all the same audio
advantages. I was using that as an example that digital radio is here to stay. Geeeesh. Yeah, have you saw the New Model One by Kloss that has Sirius or the other one? Looked pretty sharp. I can't picture me getting into it right now. Maybe three-five years down the road, if it's a household thing. ~*~*Monitoring The AirWaves~*~ *****GO BEARCATS***** Hammarlund HQ129X /Heathkit Q Multiplier Hammarlund HQ140X Multiple GE P-780's(GREAT BCB Radios) RCA Victor *Strato- World* RCA Victor RJC77W-K(Walnut Grain) 1942 Zenith Wane Magnet 6G 601M Cathedral/ Ross#2311/RhapsodyMultiBand DX100/394/398/399/402 OMGS Transistor Eight/Realistic 12-1451 Henry Kloss Model One/Bell+Howell ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ?
Is it an accronym for something ? B. -------------- "Brian Denley" wrote in message news:eps9c.20844$K91.64364@attbi_s02... No commercials! hehe -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? Frank Dresser |
Robert11 wrote: What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ? Is it an accronym for something ? The word is 'mondiale', it means 'universal'. Steve Holland, MI Drke R7, R8 and R8B http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03,
"Brian Denley" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... It cannot sound better than what the radios have already. DRM can only sound worse. Wrong. It sounds like FM. No noise or static at all. You either get perfect reception or none at all. It canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. Itıs BS that it sounds ³better.² -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special, additional codes? Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I wouldn't. Would you? Would anyone you know? You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting. If true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the broadcaster or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be better than the open system? Frank Dresser |
Telamon wrote:
In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03, It canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. Itıs BS that it sounds ³better.² I remember when CDs (digital) came out, some said they didn't sound as good a vinyl (analog) records. Whatever happened to those record players that used to be for sale? -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message t... Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special, additional codes? Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I wouldn't. Would you? Would anyone you know? I canıt tell you what everyone is likely to do but Iım sure that out of all the SW listeners some would jump through the hoops willingly. I canıt believe that some people would pay for XM radio either but they do. You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting. If true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the broadcaster or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be better than the open system? I donıt believe the argument that DRM can sound better than analog using the same bandwidth. I have listened to the recordings on the DRM site and they sure donıt sound better. No back ground noise sure but lots of audio artifacts generated by the compression and playback algorithms. Name any digital medium carrying popular content that is not controlled in some way by codes that must be paid for in advance. I fully expect SW radios will be controlled to hear at least some of the content as soon as those radios are around. The reasons for controlling who can hear SW broadcasts could be financial or propagandist. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:58:56 GMT, Telamon
wrote: It canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. You betray your ignorance of information theory with this statement. Granted, the current audio codecs used by the DRM protocols may not sound all that great. But before you go ranting about how good AM can sound, remember the degree of audio preprocessing that these things use just to get more punch on the air. It's distorted too. However, I'm sure you'll explain that in your esteemed value judgement, that it sounds better. Most people will disagree with you. In any case, just because the channel bandwidth and the signal to noise ratio are the same does not imply that any digitized signal you pass through it will be worse. In fact, it could be better. The reason is because the actual signal itself is not efficiently encoded. Given appropriate compression technology, and using turbo codes, which make reception within less than a dB of the Shannon limit possible, it's conceivable that the reception could be improved over what it would have sounded like had you used AM at that power level. I'm sure you'll continue to rant that your golden ears can detect the difference. But that's all it is: a rant. In an era when more and more of the big national SW broadcasters are leaving the airwaves, the band could sure use a shot in the arm. DRM, if it takes off, ought to increase the interest in SW listening. Gosh, I call that a good thing. Or, would you rather see all the major broadcasters leave, one by one, so that you elitist golden eared fogies can wistfully listen to atmospheric noise and dream about yesterday? 73, Jake Brodsky, AB3A "Beware of the massive impossible!" |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:17:35 GMT, Telamon
wrote: Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio similar to pay satellite TV. But if you have a software defined radio with the various codes available for a download, I'm sure there will be those who will make the effort to receive it. Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? Maybe it will be used. Is that a bad thing? XM radio does it. We've allowed it to happen for years as SCA channels of FM stereo broadcasts. You say this as if it were the worst thing in the world. Jake Brodsky, AB3A "Beware of the massive impossible!" |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... I donıt believe the argument that DRM can sound better than analog using the same bandwidth. I have listened to the recordings on the DRM site and they sure donıt sound better. No back ground noise sure but lots of audio artifacts generated by the compression and playback algorithms. I don't know if DRM's sound quality will reliably be better or not. I don't think it's really much of an issue. The public didn't much care about the HiFi AM experiments of around 1940, and it took about 25 years before FM became popular. The standard AM broadcast sound seems good enough for most people. I suppose analog fade outs will be replaced by digital drop outs. I don't think consumers will be happy paying for a service which drops out from time to time. Name any digital medium carrying popular content that is not controlled in some way by codes that must be paid for in advance. I fully expect SW radios will be controlled to hear at least some of the content as soon as those radios are around. Any new technology has patents, and the patent holders usually charge licence fees. Digital isn't unique in that respect. I don't know if the patents on CD technology has run out or not, but CD players are really cheap now. Anyway, standards evolve. The first "standards war" might have been between Edison's up and down groove modulation system vs. the later side to side system. The side to side system was, in general, a little better and won out. However, there were some phoney attempts to create a different standard. A few record companies tried to produce non standard records which would only be playable on only one brand of machine. They failed. People didn't have much interest in the non standard systems. I wonder if David Sarnoff ever though of making a special disk format for Elvis. The "Elvis disks" would play the records of RCA's biggest star on exclusive RCA players. He might have thought of such a thing. Sarnoff was many things, but he wasn't stupid. Whatever, there were no exclusive RCA Elvis disks. Elvis was out on 78s, 45s, and LPs. I belive this was still in the time frame that CBS had patents on the LP. The reasons for controlling who can hear SW broadcasts could be financial or propagandist. -- Telamon I can imagine an advantage for the propagandists, but I can imagine far greater disadvantages. Let's say China or Cuba or North Korea decided to put in their own propriatary digital modulation scheme. First problem is there's a large base of perfectly good existing anolog radios to be replaced. I doubt that could be done quickly or completely and it would certainly antagonize the people of these countries. Not a good propaganda move with the internal population. And the VOA or Radio Marti would still have a long time to broadcast in AM. AM would probably outlast Fidel Castro. And when these countries finally went all digital, I'm sure we would crack their modulation scheme quickly. We're good at those things. If they tried to change the scheme at a regular basis, they'd have to somehow distribute the new codes on a public basis without the rival propagandists getting them. I don't see how that can be possible. And the restrictive countries aren't pushing the digital scheme. As far as a finacial or commerical development of a propriatary digital SW broadcasting scheme, I don't see why any of the current broadcasters would support it. Broadcasters like Alex Jones, Brother Stair and the VOA want to be heard as widely as possible. And I don't think the current audience of SWLs will have much interest, either. There's plenty of choices for information and entertainment out there, and most of them are free. The digital pay schemes in current use either rely on dozens or even hundreds of choices for the consumer at a reasonably low cost, or a special broadcast. It's a longshot, but I can imagine the shock jocks, such as Howard Stern, might go to pay radio. I think they might be better suited by sattelite radio if they go to a subscription plan, but I think it would be doable on SW. This would be a great thing for the SWL hobby. The new listeners would also get exposed to Alex Jones and The Prophet and all the other amusments SW radio has to offer. Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com