StephenH wrote:

Dan Say wrote in message news:clmqmm$ik4
Countries are finding that none of their
nationals are listening, Germans not listening
to DW, Brits not listening to BBCWS etc.
So the most important self-market is lost.

Is that actually true? I can think of several fellow British people
who have reason to be abroad reguarly every year who rely on the BBC
World Service to hear news not only from their home broadcaster, but
also British news. This is the same for friends who just go on
holiday for a few weeks. Sure, BBC World and Prime may be available
in their hotel rooms abroad but thats all international perspective.

Many international broadcasters still recognise foreign nationals and
ex-pats as being important. Although Radio Vlaanderen Internationaal
are killing the majority of their output, what will be left of the
Flemish service apparently has one sole target area. South and South
East Europe. Where most Belgians go on vacation.

International SW broadcasting still has various purposes, IMO:

* As mentioned above - nationals abroad. No one else is going to
serve them.
* International news for an international audience. If BBC World is
going to exist happily on TV, why shouldn't BBC World Service on
radio? I'll hold back on dozens of other examples
* As you say, serving rural areas, freedom-suppressed regions. It's
more important than just building diplomacy though, some people depend
on SW as a lifeline, the ONLY way they can get any sort of real news
and education.

If people are turning away from shortwave (of which there is no
doubt), a big part of that will be the technology. SW used to be good
enough. But AM broadcasting on SW is ancient. Satellite sounds much
better. Even low-bitrate net streams sound a damn sight better than a
distant SW transmission. That's where DRM is going to be crucial.
It's going to make international broadcasting listenable again,
attractive again. It will have the advantages of satellite and
internet radio as far as audio quality is concerned, with all the
portability of REAL radio. And theres no doubt that in a short space
of time, DRM receivers will become affordable in poorer areas of the
world.

It's shortsighted to write off DRM so soon. It must be given a
chance.

Sure, keep the QRM a coming....

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote in message ...
StephenH wrote:
It's shortsighted to write off DRM so soon. It must be given a
chance.

Sure, keep the QRM a coming....

As sarcastic as that may (be intended to) sound, you know, I know and
I'm sure everyone else knows that is a serious point. DRM *is*
causing serious problems to adjacent channels. The evidence is there
on a daily basis, and if DRM is to grow this problem will only get
worse.

This is where the HFCC should come in. If DRM is going to be taken
seriously, even by long-term hardcore DXers, then it can't be made to
co-exist smack back in the middle of established AM broadcasts. There
*has* to be a "DRM corner", on a few or all of the broadcast SW metre
bands. Initally, a space of 50 to 100 kHz on each band, dedicated to
DRM only broadcasts. Where this might be allowing more capacity than
required for DRM in the meantime, it should allow DRM to grow a little
more - possibly to the extent where it might begin to be commerically
attractive/viable - with NO impact on existing AM broadcasts. As time
goes on, increase the DRM "band" while reducing the AM band. AM
doesn't need to disappear completely, nor do I believe it will. (Same
with FM vs DAB/IBOC)

But there must be more to it than this. Maybe I'm making it sound too
simple, there *must* be a real, logical reason as to why this approach
hasn't already been taken. Otherwise, doesn't this approach solve
most problems with interference, whilst giving DRM the space it needs
to grow a little more?

Stephen Howie,
Reading, U.K

StephenH wrote:

dxAce wrote in message ...
StephenH wrote:
It's shortsighted to write off DRM so soon. It must be given a
chance.

Sure, keep the QRM a coming....

As sarcastic as that may (be intended to) sound, you know, I know and
I'm sure everyone else knows that is a serious point. DRM *is*
causing serious problems to adjacent channels. The evidence is there
on a daily basis, and if DRM is to grow this problem will only get
worse.

This is where the HFCC should come in. If DRM is going to be taken
seriously, even by long-term hardcore DXers, then it can't be made to
co-exist smack back in the middle of established AM broadcasts. There
*has* to be a "DRM corner", on a few or all of the broadcast SW metre
bands. Initally, a space of 50 to 100 kHz on each band, dedicated to
DRM only broadcasts. Where this might be allowing more capacity than
required for DRM in the meantime, it should allow DRM to grow a little
more - possibly to the extent where it might begin to be commerically
attractive/viable - with NO impact on existing AM broadcasts. As time
goes on, increase the DRM "band" while reducing the AM band. AM
doesn't need to disappear completely, nor do I believe it will. (Same
with FM vs DAB/IBOC)

But there must be more to it than this. Maybe I'm making it sound too
simple, there *must* be a real, logical reason as to why this approach
hasn't already been taken. Otherwise, doesn't this approach solve
most problems with interference, whilst giving DRM the space it needs
to grow a little more?

I certainly agree with you.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

= = = (StephenH) wrote in message
= = = om...
dxAce wrote in message ...
StephenH wrote:
It's shortsighted to write off DRM so soon. It must be given a
chance.

Sure, keep the QRM a coming....

As sarcastic as that may (be intended to) sound, you know, I know and
I'm sure everyone else knows that is a serious point. DRM *is*
causing serious problems to adjacent channels. The evidence is there
on a daily basis, and if DRM is to grow this problem will only get
worse.

This is where the HFCC should come in. If DRM is going to be taken
seriously, even by long-term hardcore DXers, then it can't be made to
co-exist smack back in the middle of established AM broadcasts. There
*has* to be a "DRM corner", on a few or all of the broadcast SW metre
bands. Initally, a space of 50 to 100 kHz on each band, dedicated to
DRM only broadcasts. Where this might be allowing more capacity than
required for DRM in the meantime, it should allow DRM to grow a little
more - possibly to the extent where it might begin to be commerically
attractive/viable - with NO impact on existing AM broadcasts. As time
goes on, increase the DRM "band" while reducing the AM band. AM
doesn't need to disappear completely, nor do I believe it will. (Same
with FM vs DAB/IBOC)

But there must be more to it than this. Maybe I'm making it sound too
simple, there *must* be a real, logical reason as to why this approach
hasn't already been taken. Otherwise, doesn't this approach solve
most problems with interference, whilst giving DRM the space it needs
to grow a little more?

Stephen Howie,
Reading, U.K


SH,

As you have suggested, a 'phase-in' Implementation of DRM over
a number of years:
* Years 1-5 each Shortwave Band would have 25% dedicated to DRM.
* Years 6-10 each Shortwave Band would have 50% dedicated to DRM.
* Years 11-15 each Shortwave Band would have 75% dedicated to DRM.
* After Year 16 each Shortwave Band would have 100% dedicated to DRM.

IIRC: The current 'channel' Spacing on the Shortwave Bands is 5 kHz.

With the phase-in implementation of DRM, wouldn't a 10 kHz, 20 kHz
or even 25 kHz be a more acceptable and practical 'channel' Spacing
to reduce interference from any 'adjacent' Channels.

~ RHF
..
..

"StephenH" wrote in message
m...

This is where the HFCC should come in. If DRM is going to be taken
seriously, even by long-term hardcore DXers, then it can't be made to
co-exist smack back in the middle of established AM broadcasts. There
*has* to be a "DRM corner", on a few or all of the broadcast SW metre
bands. Initally, a space of 50 to 100 kHz on each band, dedicated to
DRM only broadcasts. Where this might be allowing more capacity than
required for DRM in the meantime, it should allow DRM to grow a little
more - possibly to the extent where it might begin to be commerically
attractive/viable - with NO impact on existing AM broadcasts. As time
goes on, increase the DRM "band" while reducing the AM band. AM
doesn't need to disappear completely, nor do I believe it will. (Same
with FM vs DAB/IBOC)

Why reduce the AM shortwave broadcast band at all? The AM SW BC bands have
been expanded since the SW commercial utility stations have mostly left.
Just let some of the new expansions go to DRM.



But there must be more to it than this. Maybe I'm making it sound too
simple, there *must* be a real, logical reason as to why this approach
hasn't already been taken. Otherwise, doesn't this approach solve
most problems with interference, whilst giving DRM the space it needs
to grow a little more?

Stephen Howie,
Reading, U.K

Maybe a station is equipped and licensed to operate on a certain frequency,
so that's where they operate, DRM or AM. The real, logical reason might be
that nobody though much about interference until now, and the implementation
is haphazard.

Frank Dresser