For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

I'm not convinced that digital transmissions over the HF bands offer
much inducement for broadcasters to stay on the shortwave bands.
Listeners will have to purchase yet another piece of electronic
equipment that may very well be dedicated to one format. Given that
international broadcasters already send their messages over satellite
and internet connections, it will be hard to convince listeners that a
digital receiver will offer much new.

"Swiss Radio trades waves for web Switzerland is ending almost 70
years of broadcasting around the world today, with Swiss Radio
International airing its last programs on shortwave and satellite.
From Monday, the media organisation's information output will be
available only online. Swiss Radio International started broadcasting
in 1935. It made a name for itself as a neutral broadcaster during
World War Two and the Cold War. Under the name Swissinfo, it will now
be available online in nine languages."




"Mike Terry" wrote in message ...
Monday, 25 October 2004

"Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will
initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the
Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel
discussion at Münchner Medientage.

Bettermann, the head of the German international broadcaster - and
instigator of the event - was not the only one to present an optimistic
prediction of a "Digital Global Radio" development: The other panel
specialists also emphasised the advantages of digitalisation in the
so-called AM range, i.e. short-, medium- and long-wave.

The discussion was chaired by Peter Senger, Director of Distribution at
Deutsche Welle and Chairman of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Consortium;
and next to Erik Bettermann, BBC representative Mike Cronk, Dan D'Aversa of
RTL Group and Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) were also
participating in the debate.

Senger outlined the advantages of digital short-wave as follows: The
world-wide accepted DRM standard provided an excellent audio-quality
comparable to FM. In addition, the search for frequencies was obsolete, as
the station identification tuned in to the designated frequency and
automatically switched to the best one. In parallel, it allows for the
sending of accompanying programme information such as text messages.

"On top of everything, digital transmission technology saves a lot of energy
and costs compared to the analogue one", Senger said. This would open up
enormous opportunities, especially for international broadcasters.

For several years, DW - like many other broadcasters - has noted that
listeners migrated from short-wave to FM or other new distribution channels
in digital quality, said Bettermann. Deutsche Welle had to stay abreast of
these changes. "According to test transmissions being operated by Deutsche
Welle, we anticipate large area coverage in almost FM quality without
interference such as jitters, induced power-noise or fading", the General
Director stated. At the same time, not only stationery indoor reception, but
also mobile reception in cars and with small portable devices is
possible...(snip).....
Mike Cronk stated that the BBC had invested heavily in DRM and that they
were now developing "a detailed strategy for its initial deployment,
probably into Europe, in 2005". According to Cronk, DRM offered the unique
combination of wide area short-wave coverage and FM usability and quality.
As a consequence of using this digital medium, continuous direct delivery to
the audience avoiding "political or other regulatory obstacles" will be
possible...(snip)....


(See more in a long article at
http://ukradio.com/news/articles/E69...A75DE7F8A5.asp )

(John S.) wrote in message . com...
For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

It is an interesting move. What they'll end up with, I suspect, is a
very different KIND of audience. I listened to them regularly on
shortwave, but doubt I'll ever go to their website. Of course,
billions of people are on the internet and plenty of people will visit
their site, either accidentally or on purpose; but will people visit
it regularly? Some will, but I bet SRI won't have as many habitual
visitors to their site as they had routine listeners on shortwave. (I
could be wrong, but that's my prediction.) On the other hand, there'll
be more people who come to the site more-or-less by accident and never
visit a second time. In the end, I think it boils down to the
question: What kind of audience does SRI want?

Steve

(Steve) wrote in message om...
(John S.) wrote in message . com...
For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

It is an interesting move. What they'll end up with, I suspect, is a
very different KIND of audience. I listened to them regularly on
shortwave, but doubt I'll ever go to their website. Of course,
billions of people are on the internet and plenty of people will visit
their site, either accidentally or on purpose; but will people visit
it regularly? Some will, but I bet SRI won't have as many habitual
visitors to their site as they had routine listeners on shortwave. (I
could be wrong, but that's my prediction.) On the other hand, there'll
be more people who come to the site more-or-less by accident and never
visit a second time. In the end, I think it boils down to the
question: What kind of audience does SRI want?

Steve

Good points. And, once they move to the internet, their competion
increases exponentially. Most people on the internet are looking for
information and there are zillions of sources to chose from we all
know. For many users it may not matter whether it is an audio & video
feed from the SRI site or news updates from CNN.com The net is far
more efficient than shortwave when it comes to getting information out
consistently to a broad audience.

The net doesn't have near the exclusivity and excitement a shortwave
broadcast has, or seems to have (for me any way). But it does give
users access to far more information, stories, breaking news, than was
ever possible with a receiver and a wire. International broadcasters
that move to the net may find that they will have to evolve into an
information resource that looks and sounds totally different than a
radio broadcast. Somehow they will have to be able to demonstrate
that their news and information is somehow different from everyone
else. SRI may find it difficult to make the switch because the name
is not as widely known as CNN and BBC.