"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:50:45 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

Money is the real issue, not shortwave or the technology of program
distribution. Don't expect all of the current shortwave broadcasters to
be
available in the future.

Indeed. But if truly no one is listening, then there won't be either
shortwave broadcasting *or* internet/satellite broadcasting.

And the right people have to be listening. I'm sure I make no difference to
the international broadcasters, and maybe you don't either. They want the
decision makers and opinion formers or whatever. As public diplomacy goes,
it's probably cheaper and more effective to host a big party at a diplomatic
mission.

Broadcasting of one form or another does serve the citizens(taxpayers) in
foriegn nations. So nations will likely continue with broadcasting in their
own native languages for a while.


International broadcasters will stick around if they have the funding. I
suppose they can have fundraisers like the US public broadcasters.

But since satellite/internet is paid for with subscriptions and/or
commercials, these have a better chance of surviving.


I think the subscription fee spreads pretty thin between 100+ channels and
the high cost of launching satellites.

The BBC and DW might be able to defray some costs by selling some
programming to US public radio, but I don't think there will be any money
for Radio Obscura.



AM modulation and shortwave radio need never be obselete. If the
international broadcasters abandon the SW bands, I'm sure the void will
be
filled with radio hobbyists.

Technically, it's already obsolete.


Yeah, technically home computers are obselete the minute they are paid for.
On the other hand, AM modulation is as obselete as the piston engine, which
was to be replaced by the turbine or wankel at least 20 years ago.


If/When more major broadcasters
completely abandon shortwave (BBC, Netherlands, Canada, VOA, WBCQ,
Cuba, Russia, etc.) then it will be obsolete *to me*. Unless "radio
hobbyists" have interesting programming (something more than just
playing 70's classic rock), then count me as not interested.

I suppose a few hobby broadcasters could be as good as Alan Maxwell. Most
will be like CBers.

10-4 on the classic rock thing. I might take up hobby missle technology.
Something to home in on "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven".



It just means I get to buy all new computers and radios!

That assumes somebody will want to pay for international broadcasting in
a
new form. Since international broadcasting is a form of public
diplomacy,
some countries will continue with it. I wouldn't bet they all will,
however.

Agreed. The truly BIG names (BBC, VOA, etc.) probably will. The
rest can just go internet/satellite/cable. People might actually
listen when it's not fading and noisy, and it's easy to find.
Already, internet is the only way I listen to Australia and sometimes
BBC.

Listeners or not, a nation has a right to expect a return for the expense of
broadcasting.



Yes, it will be a sad day when I no longer tune a shortwave radio *at
all*. But it will be no worse than when I packed up my TRS-80
computer with 2, 180K floppy drives, 5 meg hard drive and 48K RAM. I
still have TRS-80's, and still break them out once a year or so.

I can see me breaking out a shortwave radio once a year and spinning
the knob, to see if (A) it still works and (B) to see if there's
"anybody out there". Will probably happen in about 10 years.

Dan


I have no idea of the time frame. The changes in technology are only a
small part of the changes in international broadcasting. Economics and
politics play a far larger part. For all I know, international broadcasting
will become the haven of useless political payrollers. In that case, it
will go on endlessly.

Frank Dresser

AM is a bandwidth hog and way too sensitive to interference. I can
see why the FAA likes it on VHF (you can hear both transmitters if 2
light-up at the same time) but for entertainment delivery I'm afraid
the light dimmers and touch lamps are winning.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:31:52 GMT, "Frank Dresser"

On the other hand, AM modulation is as obselete as the piston engine, which
was to be replaced by the turbine or wankel at least 20 years ago.

"David" wrote in message
...
AM is a bandwidth hog and way too sensitive to interference. I can
see why the FAA likes it on VHF (you can hear both transmitters if 2
light-up at the same time) but for entertainment delivery I'm afraid
the light dimmers and touch lamps are winning.


How is AM a bandwidth hog? Standard AM on SW is about 10khz wide. For
communicaton puropses, 3khz SSB is adequate. DRM is also in a 10khz
channel, but it's interference potential is much worse than AM because it's
energy is more evenly distributed across the channel, while there's usually
little high frequency energy in a an AM channel with normal programming.

You have a point about the interference problems with AM, but touch lamps,
light dimmers and switchmode power supplies can be made much cleaner for
little more expense. Electrically clean products are available right now.
If interference ever becomes much of an issue for most people, it would be
easier and cheaper to enforce existing Part 15 rules, rather than force
everyone to buy a new radio.

Frank Dresser