I'd like to begin by clarifying something that came up on the newsgroup
rec.radio.shortwave earlier this week. Someone asked whether Radio
Netherlands had stopped carrying news bulletins. We have, but only in our
evening English broadcasts to North America. The recent budget cuts by the
Dutch government forced us to make some difficult decisions. The overnight
live news/continuity shift had to be abolished to save money. Unfortunately,
that encompasses our midnight, 0100 and 0400 UTC English transmissions to
North America. We discussed whether we should replay older news summaries,
but it was felt that our listeners in western North America particularly
would get a poor deal, with a bulletin that was 7 hours old. We came down on
the side of offering expanded current affairs analysis, something that has
been requested by many of our North American listeners.

Our 1100 UTC transmission to North America still includes a news summary,
but if you can't tune into this, there is now another option: we have a new
E-mail news service for our English-speaking audience: our news items will
be E-mailed to you once a day, seven days a week. A fresh E-mail bulletin is
sent out every day at around 0430 UTC. This service is free of charge, and
you don't even have to give us your full name if you don't want to - just a
valid E-mail address. To sign up, go to
http://www.rnw.nl/cgi/index.php?app=...ews&page=index or click on the
E-mail news link in the top left hand corner of our English home page at
www.rnw.nl.

You can also check our online audio service for the latest broadcast news
bulletin:
http://www.rnw.nl/distrib/realaudio/html/english.html

(Andy Sennitt)

I am just glad that they are still on the air with the quality of programming
they have.
I am glad to see that you are in broadcasting. I enjoyed your comments in Fido
Shortwave group. I actually liked the Fido group it had less political spam
than in here.

Mike Terry wrote:


I'd like to begin by clarifying something that came up on the newsgroup
rec.radio.shortwave earlier this week. Someone asked whether Radio
Netherlands had stopped carrying news bulletins. We have, but only in our
evening English broadcasts to North America. The recent budget cuts by the
Dutch government forced us to make some difficult decisions. The overnight
live news/continuity shift had to be abolished to save money. Unfortunately,
that encompasses our midnight, 0100 and 0400 UTC English transmissions to
North America. We discussed whether we should replay older news summaries,
but it was felt that our listeners in western North America particularly
would get a poor deal, with a bulletin that was 7 hours old. We came down on
the side of offering expanded current affairs analysis, something that has
been requested by many of our North American listeners.

I figured it was to save money. I sympathize with the fact that 0400 UTC
is 6am in Hilversum, but I still appreciate Radio Exterior de Espana's
news bulletin at 0000 despite the fact that it's several hours old.

Our 1100 UTC transmission to North America still includes a news summary,

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

tommyknocker wrote:

Mike Terry wrote:


I'd like to begin by clarifying something that came up on the newsgroup
rec.radio.shortwave earlier this week. Someone asked whether Radio
Netherlands had stopped carrying news bulletins. We have, but only in our
evening English broadcasts to North America. The recent budget cuts by the
Dutch government forced us to make some difficult decisions. The overnight
live news/continuity shift had to be abolished to save money. Unfortunately,
that encompasses our midnight, 0100 and 0400 UTC English transmissions to
North America. We discussed whether we should replay older news summaries,
but it was felt that our listeners in western North America particularly
would get a poor deal, with a bulletin that was 7 hours old. We came down on
the side of offering expanded current affairs analysis, something that has
been requested by many of our North American listeners.

I figured it was to save money. I sympathize with the fact that 0400 UTC
is 6am in Hilversum, but I still appreciate Radio Exterior de Espana's
news bulletin at 0000 despite the fact that it's several hours old.

Our 1100 UTC transmission to North America still includes a news summary,

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

Our 1100 UTC transmission to North America still includes a news summary,

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote:

Our 1100 UTC transmission to North America still includes a news summary,

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.

It's quite obvious what he meant! The sentence says '... Atlantic and Pacific coasts'.
Not '...Atlantic time zone and Pacific coast'.

But if one wished to get terribly technical then one could go to Alaska which is on the
Pacific coast and toss in another time zone too!

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.

It's quite obvious what he meant! The sentence says '... Atlantic and Pacific coasts'.
Not '...Atlantic time zone and Pacific coast'.

But if one wished to get terribly technical then one could go to Alaska which is on the
Pacific coast and toss in another time zone too!

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PE Island are all on the
Atlantic coast but they're an hour ahead of the US Atlantic coast.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote:

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.

It's quite obvious what he meant! The sentence says '... Atlantic and Pacific coasts'.
Not '...Atlantic time zone and Pacific coast'.

But if one wished to get terribly technical then one could go to Alaska which is on the
Pacific coast and toss in another time zone too!

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PE Island are all on the
Atlantic coast but they're an hour ahead of the US Atlantic coast.

No kidding.

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.

It's quite obvious what he meant! The sentence says '... Atlantic and Pacific coasts'.
Not '...Atlantic time zone and Pacific coast'.

But if one wished to get terribly technical then one could go to Alaska which is on the
Pacific coast and toss in another time zone too!

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PE Island are all on the
Atlantic coast but they're an hour ahead of the US Atlantic coast.

No kidding.

Then it's not so obvious which Atlantic coast (time zone) he was talking
about.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote:

Unfortunately, 1100 UTC is in the wee hours of the morning in western
North America. Perhaps you can add an extra morning transmission to
western NAm by getting rid of the 0100 tx to Central NAm, which I've
always viewed as unnecessary because the two time zones are only an hour
apart, as opposed to four hours difference between the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts.

4 hours difference? If it's 6 PM in San Francisco (Pacific Time) it's 9 PM here in
Michigan (Eastern Time). That's 3 hours.

It depends on what he means by 'Atlantic'. It's four hours between the
Atlantic time zone and the Pacific coast, not considering daylight
saving time.

It's quite obvious what he meant! The sentence says '... Atlantic and Pacific coasts'.
Not '...Atlantic time zone and Pacific coast'.

But if one wished to get terribly technical then one could go to Alaska which is on the
Pacific coast and toss in another time zone too!

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PE Island are all on the
Atlantic coast but they're an hour ahead of the US Atlantic coast.

No kidding.

Then it's not so obvious which Atlantic coast (time zone) he was talking
about.

It was pretty obvious to me!



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----