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