In article ,
(R Neutron) wrote:

tommyknocker wrote in message
...
I was just thinking about this today. Has anybody noticed that
shortwave radio has really declined over the past five years or so?
We've lost BBC and Deutsche Welle transmissions to North America,
we've lost several smaller European broadcasters entirely, other
stations have drastically cut back. Are transmitting facilities
really going on the blink so soon after the end of the cold war? Or
has everybody jumped on the BBC's bandwagon and concluded that
satellite and internet broadcasting has replaced shortwave? Any
thoughts?

4 or 5 years ago my brother and I bought my father a grundig 800. He
is a ww2 vet, Navy signalman and loved to listen to morse. He had
always asked me if I was interested in SW and at the time being
possesed by the internet I thought it (SW) was a dying interest only
taken to by guys like my dad. Well as ill health has taken much of
his mobility he gave me the 800 (about 4 mos ago). Well to cut to
the chase I now have my own little mini-shack next to my pc and I'm
loving it. To work the dials in the dark of the late evening,
pulling in some radio broadcast from the other side of the planet is
something I find hard to explain!

Yes I can't explain the attraction either. Worse I actually like some
of the noise and distortion impressed on the signals as they make their
way through the ionosphere. Listening to weak signals with the static
coming in stronger signal fading and then the signal coming back with
the static fading in rhythmic fastion sounds at times like ocean waves
breaking on the beach while listening to distant stations.

You may have guessed that I live near the beach for several reasons.

My once flat and clean Passport now dogeared and smudged attest to
my late hours. I don't listen to any sw from the net as I kind of
want to keep it the way it is. My father by the way most vicariously
shares my "new" found interest. Sure things will change over
time...I have,,good listening RN

Nothing beats sharing your interests or spending time with your family.
A win-win situation if I ever saw one.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Internet radio generally means being tied to an internet-connected
computer, preferably with broadband. The majority of Americans do not
have broadband as of yet. Even with broadband, "tuning" internet radio is
an annoyance. Many of the stations aren't available, and when they are,
you can expect a nice 10+-second delay between clicking "Listen" and
actually hearing something. With shortwave, one can tune around freely
and comfortably. Plus, how many people do you know that regularly listen
to internet radio? Not saying shortwave has any more, but still...

As for satellite, it might be nice with XM and all, but the range of
international voices are still small on those services (XM and Sirius).
There may be the BBC, and isn't DW on the other sat? But what about VOR,
R Vatican, RVI, R Netherlands, R Japan, R Australia, etc. Do you actually
think smaller broadcasters (at least less-known ones) will be on the birds
any time soon? From impressions, Worldspace hasn't been going over too
well in the third world, either. It would be awesome to have an open
satellite radio system good for exploring and having a technical element
to it, kind of like shortwave or even satellite TV (Telstar 5, etc.), but
XM and Sirius are nothing more than corporate-controlled networks for
normal consumers who want clear audio and familliar sounds. There is no
thrill.

"Satellite and internet" are definitely not the forces driving shortwave
stations off the air in developing nations. It's more likely things like
broader FM radio coverage, satellite/local TV, etc. Shortwave, however,
remains the most effective method in such nations of covering a large
audience with little resources (e.g. 1 250 kW SW transmitter vs. 50 50 kW
FM transmitters).

Even in the first world, portability is an issue. Portable shortwave
receivers are small and convenient. If you're out in the wilderness
camping, you can pull out a shortwave with a few dozen feet of wire
attached and hear the VOA, REE, BBC, or Deutsche Welle, without a
subscription or any serious hassles. Has anybody tried listening to
internet radio in such an environment?

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:04:03 -0400, Dan Robinson wrote:

Shortwave is, to our dismay, on the way out. Anyone
who uses as hope the fact that some areas of the world
are still in "need" of shortwave is ignoring the great
potential of internet and satellite for reaching these
same places. Stations are not going to continue to
pay to support shortwave transmission means just
to reach the remotest folks in villages in Africa and
Asia simply because these people are still "thirsting"
for free and objective information. After all, solar
powered internet is already a reality in many places,
as is solar and other alternative powered sat TV.
Hard for many of us (including those of us working in
international broadcasting) to swallow, but it's the
truth...

From: "Mark S. Holden"
Reply-To:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:19:15 -0400
Subject: Shortwave's decline over past five years

tommyknocker wrote:

I was just thinking about this today. Has anybody noticed that shortwave
radio has really declined over the past five years or so? We've lost BBC
and Deutsche Welle transmissions to North America, we've lost several
smaller European broadcasters entirely, other stations have drastically
cut back. Are transmitting facilities really going on the blink so soon
after the end of the cold war? Or has everybody jumped on the BBC's
bandwagon and concluded that satellite and internet broadcasting has
replaced shortwave? Any thoughts?


I'm not happy when I hear another major broadcaster is going to cut back
or stop broadcasting to the USA, but I think shortwave will be around
for a very long time.

In certain parts of the world, internet connections are scarce. Some
parts of the USA don't have affordable access to high speed connections.

While the internet is competition in some respects, it's also a great
resource for information to help you get more enjoyment out of the SW
hobby.

It may just be positive thinking, but it seems we've had somewhat of an
uptick in the number of pirate stations over the last couple years.

The other thing to consider is back when the hobby started, the number
of signals was probably a small fraction of what we have to choose from
today.

Of course one thing you can do to help promote the hobby is get the
better radios you're not using into the hands of kids.

Jacob Norlund wrote:

Internet radio generally means being tied to an internet-connected
computer, preferably with broadband. The majority of Americans do not
have broadband as of yet. Even with broadband, "tuning" internet radio is
an annoyance. Many of the stations aren't available, and when they are,
you can expect a nice 10+-second delay between clicking "Listen" and
actually hearing something. With shortwave, one can tune around freely
and comfortably. Plus, how many people do you know that regularly listen
to internet radio? Not saying shortwave has any more, but still...

I've heard that attempts have been made to create a tunable internet
radio that would have a satellite broadband connection and work like a
shortwave (or even an AM/FM) radio, but the technology doesn't allow it
at this time. Eventually it will happen-if for no other reason than
Moore's Law-and then not only SW but AM and FM will be in big trouble.
But that's at least 5 years off, if not longer.

As for satellite, it might be nice with XM and all, but the range of
international voices are still small on those services (XM and Sirius).
There may be the BBC, and isn't DW on the other sat? But what about VOR,
R Vatican, RVI, R Netherlands, R Japan, R Australia, etc. Do you actually
think smaller broadcasters (at least less-known ones) will be on the birds
any time soon? From impressions, Worldspace hasn't been going over too
well in the third world, either. It would be awesome to have an open
satellite radio system good for exploring and having a technical element
to it, kind of like shortwave or even satellite TV (Telstar 5, etc.), but
XM and Sirius are nothing more than corporate-controlled networks for
normal consumers who want clear audio and familliar sounds. There is no
thrill.

"Thrill" doesn't drive consumers' choices, unfortunately. But the rise
of MP3's have shown that "free" is still a powerful marketing tool. With
satellite radio, people will think "Why should I pay monthly
subscription fees for something I can get with a normal FM stereo
receiver?" People have become resigned to shelling out big money for
satellite TV (I'm talking small dish stuff like DirecTV and Dish
Network) because of the choice it offers. Satellite radio, from what
I've heard, offers no more choice than AM/FM, and the quality isn't any
better than FM.

"Satellite and internet" are definitely not the forces driving shortwave
stations off the air in developing nations. It's more likely things like
broader FM radio coverage, satellite/local TV, etc. Shortwave, however,
remains the most effective method in such nations of covering a large
audience with little resources (e.g. 1 250 kW SW transmitter vs. 50 50 kW
FM transmitters).

In poor areas shortwave is still number one. In the cities they have AM
and FM, but AM and FM, even when brought to inland areas, have limited
coverage in comparison to the amount of impenetrable jungle or desert
territory with thinly spread populations that many Third World nations
have. In small Third World nations like Haiti or Eritrea, AM and FM are
viable for covering the whole country. But think of South America or
Africa and the vast regions of jungles and deserts with few cities that
exist. These regions have no comparison in the US. Look at a map of
Nevada or Wyoming or Alaska, they are dotted with small cities that can
afford to cover their surrounding areas with AM and FM stations. Then
look at someplace like Brazil where most "towns" are a few shacks in
size and much poorer.


Even in the first world, portability is an issue. Portable shortwave
receivers are small and convenient. If you're out in the wilderness
camping, you can pull out a shortwave with a few dozen feet of wire
attached and hear the VOA, REE, BBC, or Deutsche Welle, without a
subscription or any serious hassles. Has anybody tried listening to
internet radio in such an environment?

Like I said, when an "internet radio" is invented that looks and acts
like a radio but connects to the internet wirelessly, conventional radio
will be doomed. I'm confident that I'll see it in my lifetime (I'm 29).
But until then regular radio will do ok.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:04:03 -0400, Dan Robinson wrote:

Shortwave is, to our dismay, on the way out. Anyone
who uses as hope the fact that some areas of the world
are still in "need" of shortwave is ignoring the great
potential of internet and satellite for reaching these
same places. Stations are not going to continue to
pay to support shortwave transmission means just
to reach the remotest folks in villages in Africa and
Asia simply because these people are still "thirsting"
for free and objective information. After all, solar
powered internet is already a reality in many places,
as is solar and other alternative powered sat TV.
Hard for many of us (including those of us working in
international broadcasting) to swallow, but it's the
truth...

From: "Mark S. Holden"
Reply-To:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:19:15 -0400
Subject: Shortwave's decline over past five years

tommyknocker wrote:

I was just thinking about this today. Has anybody noticed that shortwave
radio has really declined over the past five years or so? We've lost BBC
and Deutsche Welle transmissions to North America, we've lost several
smaller European broadcasters entirely, other stations have drastically
cut back. Are transmitting facilities really going on the blink so soon
after the end of the cold war? Or has everybody jumped on the BBC's
bandwagon and concluded that satellite and internet broadcasting has
replaced shortwave? Any thoughts?


I'm not happy when I hear another major broadcaster is going to cut back
or stop broadcasting to the USA, but I think shortwave will be around
for a very long time.

In certain parts of the world, internet connections are scarce. Some
parts of the USA don't have affordable access to high speed connections.

While the internet is competition in some respects, it's also a great
resource for information to help you get more enjoyment out of the SW
hobby.

It may just be positive thinking, but it seems we've had somewhat of an
uptick in the number of pirate stations over the last couple years.

The other thing to consider is back when the hobby started, the number
of signals was probably a small fraction of what we have to choose from
today.

Of course one thing you can do to help promote the hobby is get the
better radios you're not using into the hands of kids.

tommyknocker wrote:

Jacob Norlund wrote:

Internet radio generally means being tied to an internet-connected
computer, preferably with broadband. The majority of Americans do not
have broadband as of yet. Even with broadband, "tuning" internet radio is
an annoyance. Many of the stations aren't available, and when they are,
you can expect a nice 10+-second delay between clicking "Listen" and
actually hearing something. With shortwave, one can tune around freely
and comfortably. Plus, how many people do you know that regularly listen
to internet radio? Not saying shortwave has any more, but still...

I've heard that attempts have been made to create a tunable internet
radio that would have a satellite broadband connection and work like a
shortwave (or even an AM/FM) radio, but the technology doesn't allow it
at this time. Eventually it will happen-if for no other reason than
Moore's Law-and then not only SW but AM and FM will be in big trouble.
But that's at least 5 years off, if not longer.

Nothing particularly new or difficult about this. I haven't tried lately
but several years ago there were a number of HF (short wave) receivers
which could be remotely tuned over the net. Problem was they could only
serve one user per receiver.

Equipment for remote control of radio receivers over the internet is
commercially available off-the-shelf from several suppliers.

There was a multi-channel "FM" style service started up in some Canadian
cities three or four years ago; but it died IIRC from lack of interest.

I used to listen to music from internet services which provided a wide
variety of choices, and were entertaining and of high quality; but
drifted back to real radio where I could receive items related to my
particular area.
They were OK for background music, if that is what you want radio for.


As for satellite, it might be nice with XM and all, but the range of
international voices are still small on those services (XM and Sirius).
There may be the BBC, and isn't DW on the other sat? But what about VOR,
R Vatican, RVI, R Netherlands, R Japan, R Australia, etc. Do you actually
think smaller broadcasters (at least less-known ones) will be on the birds
any time soon? From impressions, Worldspace hasn't been going over too
well in the third world, either. It would be awesome to have an open
satellite radio system good for exploring and having a technical element
to it, kind of like shortwave or even satellite TV (Telstar 5, etc.), but
XM and Sirius are nothing more than corporate-controlled networks for
normal consumers who want clear audio and familliar sounds. There is no
thrill.

"Thrill" doesn't drive consumers' choices,


That should be news to the advertising industry!
Have you looked at advertising during the last 50 years or so? Sorry
make that 25 years for you.


unfortunately. But the rise
of MP3's have shown that "free" is still a powerful marketing tool. With
satellite radio, people will think "Why should I pay monthly
subscription fees for something I can get with a normal FM stereo
receiver?" People have become resigned to shelling out big money for
satellite TV (I'm talking small dish stuff like DirecTV and Dish
Network) because of the choice it offers. Satellite radio, from what
I've heard, offers no more choice than AM/FM, and the quality isn't any
better than FM.

"Satellite and internet" are definitely not the forces driving shortwave
stations off the air in developing nations. It's more likely things like
broader FM radio coverage, satellite/local TV, etc. Shortwave, however,
remains the most effective method in such nations of covering a large
audience with little resources (e.g. 1 250 kW SW transmitter vs. 50 50 kW
FM transmitters).

In poor areas shortwave is still number one. In the cities they have AM
and FM, but AM and FM, even when brought to inland areas, have limited
coverage in comparison to the amount of impenetrable jungle or desert
territory with thinly spread populations that many Third World nations
have. In small Third World nations like Haiti or Eritrea, AM and FM are
viable for covering the whole country. But think of South America or
Africa and the vast regions of jungles and deserts with few cities that
exist. These regions have no comparison in the US. Look at a map of
Nevada or Wyoming or Alaska, they are dotted with small cities that can
afford to cover their surrounding areas with AM and FM stations. Then
look at someplace like Brazil where most "towns" are a few shacks in
size and much poorer.


Even in the first world, portability is an issue. Portable shortwave
receivers are small and convenient. If you're out in the wilderness
camping, you can pull out a shortwave with a few dozen feet of wire
attached and hear the VOA, REE, BBC, or Deutsche Welle, without a
subscription or any serious hassles. Has anybody tried listening to
internet radio in such an environment?

Like I said, when an "internet radio" is invented that looks and acts
like a radio but connects to the internet wirelessly, conventional radio
will be doomed. I'm confident that I'll see it in my lifetime (I'm 29).
But until then regular radio will do ok.


When wireless internet is available in those countries using SW for
domestic service FM/AM will be cheaper to provide and listen to. Several
stations which I can receive on AM and FM are also on the internet. But
I use a radio to listen to them - it is cheaper, more reliable, and
easily portable.





When I use my HAM radio and want to talk locally I use VHF FM.

When I want to talk over a long range I can use HF (ShortWave) - I can
also use a simple hand-held VHF radio and an IRLP node to communicate
globally over the Internet, but IRLP and other similar Internet wireless
links, while fun and easy to do, are hardly posing a threat to
conventional radio communications.

Dave

tommyknocker wrote:

I've heard that attempts have been made to create a tunable internet
radio that would have a satellite broadband connection and work like a
shortwave (or even an AM/FM) radio, but the technology doesn't allow it
at this time.

There was the old Kerbango radio a few years back (during the
internet boom). Cost a mint (about $400), and really required a
broadband connection to work well.....

But yes, satellite and internet are going to replace shortwave. It's
inevitable. BBC is available on many cable TV systems already.
Noisy, static filled, fading, garbled shortwave is about as interesting
to today's digital satellite TV watching, MP3 player toting, cable modem
equipped PC "digital consumer" as smoke signals were to us 40 years ago.
I myself sometimes stream BBC over my cable modem. It's the only way I
listen to Australia.

There's something to be said for the more personal touch of amaetur
radio, to actually be reaching out to make communication, not merely
placate victim to it. although the general point of the digital
consumer age is to mock spending effort, to bring us maximal convenience
and laziness, there'something to be said for doing so. Particularly
with short wave because it is an art itself.

having said that, the way things are going, we have a lot of signals and
systems evolution to do before ham radio as a technology can mature past
perhaps deserving maybe some of the of the smoke signals jokes.

Permit the quote:
"97.1(b) Contiunation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art."

although modes like PSK31 provide an easy entry point; just plug in your
sound card; i'm sure amateurs will start cooking up more advanced direct
sampling systems which we can then digitally process and optimize
signals. mixed signal silicon will advance and be made more integrable,
hopefully, and we can use these to design more efficient and further
advanced networks. to advance the art.

The corporations are done; they've achieved perfection in the cell phone
network and will dole out improvement one wireless .5 generations at a
time. the consumer cant imagine demanding any more. they built their
wireless networks and they're tied to that infrasturcture. Aside from
some bandwidth tweaking for 3G, 3.5G, 4G, they're happy and static.
they'll just dump a boatload of cash into refining the existing network
and never design something better. Call me cynical; hell, I could just
be talking about Intel and the x86/Pentium story, but I cant help but
feel the same corporate game applies to radio.

that leaves amateurs to evolve radio, not because we need it, but for
the sake of advancing the art.

It may seem a sad state of affairs to us, but the day is surely coming
when all you will hear on a shortwave radio is static.

although i have absolute faith that noise will not be unwasted, i do
worry you are right. this aspect could have a more tragic fate.

i cannot speak for amateur's radio role as a raw communications element
yet. ( still cant afford that first rig to be able to comment better).
still, i cannot help but imagine it will always have a place. in
todays slightly more heated world, people will again seek supranational
communication. a large part of the reason i seek to become a ham is to
connect with a nationality outside my own:
97.1(d) "Contination and extension of the amateu's unique abiliuty to
enhance international goodwill", as the party line goes.

please pity some 97.1(c) on me while I try and join you guys and catch up:
"Encouragement and improvement of the amatuer service through rules
which proivde for advancing skills in both the communications and
technical phases of the art".

I'm trying to learn FPGA's now in hopes of future application within
amateur radio. I'll be lurking till then.

-myren