Religion is all i hear
 

i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

"pak" wrote in message ...
i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

I disagree. I'm hearing BBC right now on 6195 kHz.
Later I'll listen to Radio Bulgaria on 7400. And Havana on 9550.
What receiver and antenna are you using?
Try this for English language schedules...
http://www.primetimeshortwave.com
look on the left for schedules
And try this for all broadcasts
http://www.eibi.de.vu
bc-b04.txt

"pak" wrote in message
...
i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

Welcome to the world of shortwave broadcast. Yes, there are way too many
religious broadcasters on shortwave nowadays, most of them from the US
beaming programs to primarily US audiences even though the FCC says it's
illegal to broadcast to US audiences on shortwave.

However, there are many other english-language programs from other stations
out there, you just have to search through and find them. When you find
them, the programming can be entertaining. 7415 evenings has WBCQ from
Maine with various types of programs, even though they also carry religious
programming.

The reason there is so much religious programming on shortwave is because
the only groups that can reliably raise the money needed to air such
programs on shortwave stations are religious groups, not to mention the
ambition of spreading their message to a worldwide audience.

So you can either search for the non-religious programs to listen to, or
else listen to utility stations like I do. All the religious programming is
probably one reason I never really got into SWBC listening and just stuck
with the utes.


--
Tom Sevart N2UHC
Frontenac, KS
http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc

pak wrote:

i just started listening to shortwave again after being away
from it for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave
bands are totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects
and shows. Am I just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands
or does anyone agree with this observation?


Ah, what you get during the daytime in
North America.
Try higher frequencies and check some
schedules for the correct time and freqs.

Try again at morning and evening, there is
more variety.

Also get your antenna up and away.
--
-\_,-~-\___...__._._._._._._._._._._._.
For real Dxing,
see]http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~vz6g-iwt/index.html

Reminds me of a funny incident back in the 1950s, when US AM broadcast
stations were still required to devote a certain amount of air time to
public service. They met the requirement by broadcasting church services
on Sunday mornings.

One Sunday morning I was introduced to a young Italian student who had
just arrived in town the night before. The first thing he said was,
"What is this with radio in your country? All I hear are priests!"
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

pak wrote:
i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

Interesting article he

From America, With Hate
Powerful, U.S.-based shortwave radio stations are broadcasting extremist
propaganda around the world
By James Latham

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=182

"Jim Haynes" wrote in message
k.net...
Reminds me of a funny incident back in the 1950s, when US AM
broadcast
stations were still required to devote a certain amount of air time
to
public service. They met the requirement by broadcasting church
services
on Sunday mornings.

They still are. The requirement is so small, however,
that they usually do it at 3:00 AM on a weeknight.

One Sunday morning I was introduced to a young Italian student who
had
just arrived in town the night before. The first thing he said was,
"What is this with radio in your country? All I hear are priests!"

--Mike L.

"pak" wrote in message
...
i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

Your not wrong.

Short-wave radio is the "Dollar Store" of broadcast
media. As such, only the greatest of kooks and paranoids, who would
never be carried by mainstream media and could never afford airtime
on the same are on short-wave. To be fair however this is more of a
USA phenomena. Foreign short-wave is still for the most part a good
source of news. Domestic USA short-wave however is nothing but a
vast wasteland of every conceivable religious nut, racists and misfit goof
ball which can be imagined. (they are also very amusing as most of em
believe their own BS) Think of it as the point where roller derby and
the tamborine-bangin fundie church on the corner on the other-side-of-the
tracks across town gather behind a microphone. ; )

Telamon wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=182

Jim Latham is the nut case that used to run RFPI in costa Rica before
the university there threw him out. This is his rant. I don't think they
are broadcasting anymore.

1) AFAIK, the university locked out RFPI because they couldn't pay the
rent. They plan to get their transmitters back up once they've raised
enough money.

2) The article identifies right-wing extremists on shortwave, complete
with quotes. I don't know why you think this is a rant.

Here's a couple more on the same topic:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=414
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=298

"oingoboingo" wrote in message
roups.com...

"pak" wrote in message
...
i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

Your not wrong.

Short-wave radio is the "Dollar Store" of broadcast
media. As such, only the greatest of kooks and paranoids, who would
never be carried by mainstream media and could never afford airtime
on the same are on short-wave. To be fair however this is more of a
USA phenomena. Foreign short-wave is still for the most part a good
source of news. Domestic USA short-wave however is nothing but a
vast wasteland of every conceivable religious nut, racists and misfit goof
ball which can be imagined. (they are also very amusing as most of em
believe their own BS) Think of it as the point where roller derby and
the tamborine-bangin fundie church on the corner on the other-side-of-the
tracks across town gather behind a microphone. ; )

If you ever listened to USA broadcast radio you would find out that most of
what is broadcast on shortwave as far as religious programming is also
broadcast on AM and FM stations all over the country. Your statement about
shortwave pandering to the folks that could otherwise not afford air time is
very incorrect.
As far as foreign broadcast being a good source of news, you have to
understand that their news is biased just as much as any other media in the
US. Most of the countries of the world do not like the US, they are jealous
of it and would love to see its demise, especially from those on the inside.
What you call "Domestic" USA short-wave is not domestic at all as
technically its illegal as one post put it earlier. As far as being
religious nuts, that is just your opinion. Racists, yes I've heard one or
two, but not scores. You can believe what you want to, and I can believe
what I want to. That's what makes this country so good, and your as welcome
to be completely wrong as you want to be.
Brian
Brian

In article ,
anagram wrote:

Telamon wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=182

Jim Latham is the nut case that used to run RFPI in costa Rica before
the university there threw him out. This is his rant. I don't think they
are broadcasting anymore.

1) AFAIK, the university locked out RFPI because they couldn't pay the
rent. They plan to get their transmitters back up once they've raised
enough money.

2) The article identifies right-wing extremists on shortwave, complete
with quotes. I don't know why you think this is a rant.

Here's a couple more on the same topic:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=414
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=298

Because I think he is a nut case as far to the left as the the crazy far
to the right wing broadcasts he rails against.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

WBCQ Radio Station www.dogpile.com
cuhulin

"Brian Oakley" wrote in message
...


If you ever listened to USA broadcast radio you would find out that most
of
what is broadcast on shortwave as far as religious programming is also
broadcast on AM and FM stations all over the country. Your statement about
shortwave pandering to the folks that could otherwise not afford air time
is
very incorrect.

Well, I listen to US domestic SW. Sure, Alex Jones and Brother Stair may
also be found on local broadcast outlets. But there are plenty of very
enteraining members of the "hidden knowledge" group found exclusively on SW.


As far as foreign broadcast being a good source of news, you have to
understand that their news is biased just as much as any other media in
the
US. Most of the countries of the world do not like the US, they are
jealous
of it and would love to see its demise, especially from those on the
inside.


Huh? Other countries use SW broadcasts to demise us from those on the
inside? Does this have something to do with HAARP?



What you call "Domestic" USA short-wave is not domestic at all as
technically its illegal as one post put it earlier.


What's your point? US SW broadcasters broadcast to a domestic audience 24
hours a day, wheather it's technically illegal or not.

If these laws exist, they aren't being enforced.

Are you suggesting US domestic SW radio is some sort of illusion?


As far as being
religious nuts, that is just your opinion.


"Nuts" is such a harsh description. I prefer the term "hidden knowledge
crowd".

Not that I'm disagreeing with the term "nuts", however.


Racists, yes I've heard one or
two, but not scores.


Do anti-semites count as racists?


You can believe what you want to, and I can believe
what I want to. That's what makes this country so good, and your as
welcome
to be completely wrong as you want to be.
Brian
Brian



Why would he want to be wrong? He seems to be doing OK.

Frank Dresser

Then don't listen to it
Tune elsewhere -- lots of non-rel to be found on the bands

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)



"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Brian Oakley" wrote in message
...


If you ever listened to USA broadcast radio you would find out that most
of
what is broadcast on shortwave as far as religious programming is also
broadcast on AM and FM stations all over the country. Your statement
about
shortwave pandering to the folks that could otherwise not afford air time
is
very incorrect.

Well, I listen to US domestic SW. Sure, Alex Jones and Brother Stair may
also be found on local broadcast outlets. But there are plenty of very
enteraining members of the "hidden knowledge" group found exclusively on
SW.


As far as foreign broadcast being a good source of news, you have to
understand that their news is biased just as much as any other media in
the
US. Most of the countries of the world do not like the US, they are
jealous
of it and would love to see its demise, especially from those on the
inside.


Huh? Other countries use SW broadcasts to demise us from those on the
inside? Does this have something to do with HAARP?



What you call "Domestic" USA short-wave is not domestic at all as
technically its illegal as one post put it earlier.


What's your point? US SW broadcasters broadcast to a domestic audience 24
hours a day, wheather it's technically illegal or not.

If these laws exist, they aren't being enforced.

Are you suggesting US domestic SW radio is some sort of illusion?


As far as being
religious nuts, that is just your opinion.


"Nuts" is such a harsh description. I prefer the term "hidden knowledge
crowd".

Not that I'm disagreeing with the term "nuts", however.


Racists, yes I've heard one or
two, but not scores.


Do anti-semites count as racists?


You can believe what you want to, and I can believe
what I want to. That's what makes this country so good, and your as
welcome
to be completely wrong as you want to be.
Brian
Brian



Why would he want to be wrong? He seems to be doing OK.

Frank Dresser

AnaGram,

The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US. The law also
states that commercial advertising is not permitted unless it is of a nature
that would appeal to an international audience. This is being blatentenly
ignored. No, the FCC is not doing it's job.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

If these laws exist, they aren't being enforced.

"CW" wrote in message
...
The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas
that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of
the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US. The law also
states that commercial advertising is not permitted unless it is of a
nature
that would appeal to an international audience. This is being blatentenly
ignored. No, the FCC is not doing it's job.


Is the ban of domestic programming from US private broadcasters a law or a
FCC regulation? I suppose I should have done my homework on this question,
but I haven't.

Anyway, I think the FCC is allowed much more latitude in deciding if it will
enforce it's own regulations or not. There's little practical difference
between the FCC deciding to not enforce a regulation and the FCC overturning
their own regulation.

Frank Dresser

"CW" wrote in message
...
The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas
that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of
the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US.

Kind of like how WBCQ is located in Maine and is ostesibly beaming its
signal to Central America and the South Pacific.

--
Tom Sevart N2UHC
Frontenac, KS
http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc

CW wrote:

The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US. The law also
states that commercial advertising is not permitted unless it is of a nature
that would appeal to an international audience. This is being blatentenly
ignored. No, the FCC is not doing it's job.
[...]


Even if the beam is to Canada, and the ads are intended to appeal to
Canadians at least in part, then no law is being broken.

Now I don't want to listen to lunatic religious rants (except for a
laugh, maybe during a party after everyone's tired of dancing) any
more than you do -- but still it must be admitted that the law
itself is absurd.

There's no rational reason why domestic shortwave broadcasting
shouldn't be allowed. In fact, it should be encouraged.

Low-power stations operating during the daytime in the 6 and 9 MHz
bands would have wide North American coverage (N.B. the almost
micropower Canadian stations on 49 meters) and cause little or no
interference overseas. These stations could be low-expense
operations, too (because they would be low-power and with simple
high-angle antennas), which would mean that they wouldn't have to
sell their souls to mammon (or gold- or quack cure-hawkers). They
could be operated by ordinary folks for a very small investment.

The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!

It's the same sort of protect-our-millions mentality that has set
terrestrial digital broadcasting back by quite a few years (and
maybe killed it), and saddled us with the kludged and dirty IBOC
turkey. Can't have scalable almost-unlimited channels! Can't have
the 250-Watt daytimer or student station upgrade overnight to an
equal signal with WABC! That would be terrible, wouldn't it?


With all good wishes,


Kevin.
--

Kevin Alfred Strom.

News: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/
The Works of R. P. Oliver: http://www.revilo-oliver.com
Personal site: http://www.kevin-strom.com

KAS,

"Kevin Alfred Strom" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam
heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas
that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of
the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US. The law also
states that commercial advertising is not permitted unless it is of a
nature
that would appeal to an international audience. This is being
blatentenly
ignored. No, the FCC is not doing it's job.
[...]


Even if the beam is to Canada, and the ads are intended to appeal to
Canadians at least in part, then no law is being broken.

Now I don't want to listen to lunatic religious rants (except for a
laugh, maybe during a party after everyone's tired of dancing) any
more than you do -- but still it must be admitted that the law
itself is absurd.

No, it isn't.


There's no rational reason why domestic shortwave broadcasting
shouldn't be allowed.

Yes, there is.


The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!

You know that is BS. That law is older than both of us. It was put in place
long before any "large media". The sole purpose was to PREVENT large media
from controlling the airwaves. It was thought that it would be far more
beneficial to have small, reasonably local stations that would reflect the
view of local communities and provide a voice for differing points of view.
It is the same reason that you need federal approval to buy a media outlet
such as radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It was thought, and they
were correct, that diversity of views was a good thing and having a few
giant companies controlling the media would be counterproductive. You are
right in that the FCC seems to be more and more attracted to the money but
that is a relatively recent thing, counter to the old rules under
discussion.

CW wrote:

"Kevin Alfred Strom" wrote in message
...

[...]

Even if the beam is to Canada, and the ads are intended to appeal to
Canadians at least in part, then no law is being broken.

Now I don't want to listen to lunatic religious rants (except for a
laugh, maybe during a party after everyone's tired of dancing) any
more than you do -- but still it must be admitted that the law
itself is absurd.


No, it isn't.


There's no rational reason why domestic shortwave broadcasting
shouldn't be allowed.


Yes, there is.





Please elucidate. It doesn't seem to have harmed Canada in any way.



The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!


You know that is BS. That law is older than both of us. It was put in place
long before any "large media".



Sure, the law was put over before even I was born (though they did
still make Packards in 1956). But the big networks were well in
place by the 1930s.



The sole purpose was to PREVENT large media
from controlling the airwaves. It was thought that it would be far more
beneficial to have small, reasonably local stations that would reflect the
view of local communities and provide a voice for differing points of view.



I doubt your assertion. That's the argument that was made, of
course, but like practically everything else that comes from the
mouth of a bought politician, it was just a screen for the real reason.

The presence of regional stations on shortwave programmed for a
domestic audience would have had essentially zero impact on people
wanting to hear local programs about the doings in Punkin Holler or
Peoria. And the local advertisers would have known that and kept
their dollars flowing to the small local stations.

But domestic shortwave would definitely have reduced the revenues of
the big networks. It would have let low-expense competition cut in
on the national accounts. _That_ was intolerable. Hence the law.

The goal of the law wasn't to freeze out the mom-and-pop AM
stations. That would have been too blatant -- and really bad PR,
too. Mom and Pop posed little threat to the big chains -- in fact,
in time they would almost be forced to join them in one way or another.

The law's real goal was to squelch the possibility of new
entrepreneurs with big ideas popping up and challenging the big
networks, which looked awful easy to do as the incredible
propagation of shortwave began to be understood and exploited.

The money-men got their way. The law was enacted. So anyone wanting
to start a national chain had to go the very expensive and difficult
route of buying or signing up hundreds of stations -- a very high
bar to competition. The big guys like it behind that kind of bar.
They _hate_ leveling the playing field. That's why they like IBOC.

It's a parallel situation to big corporations, their "foundations,"
and the tax system.

The super-rich love the "progressive" tax system that is sold to the
boobs as "soaking the rich."

Why? Because 1) their bought "liberal" and kosher "conservative"
politicians make them so many exemptions and writeoffs that it takes
volumes the size of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ merely to record
them (probably no one person has even read them all); 2) a tax
system that ratchets up the rates the higher your income (a
so-called "progressive" system) makes it harder -- and this is the
key -- for new people (who can't yet play the fancy accounting and
writeoff games) to rise into the ranks of the super-wealthy and
powerful; and 3) a complex tax system that requires the serfs to
report all their economic activity to Big Brother makes people
easier to control -- and easier to indict and jail if they miss some
jot or tittle of the law, as practically everyone has.

What they _don't want_ is too many people (there will always be some
who succeed nevertheless, of course) who own a few million and a
factory or business or two to be able to rise the next step up the
ladder to the level of the super-rich and powerful. That might be
bad for "stability."

And they certainly don't want the old American upper middle class,
which once had a degree of real financial independence and the
ability to create and fund new political movements, to regain that
independence. (Now this class has been reduced mainly to being
glorified employees of the corporations.)




It is the same reason that you need federal approval to buy a media outlet
such as radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It was thought, and they
were correct, that diversity of views was a good thing and having a few
giant companies controlling the media would be counterproductive. You are
right in that the FCC seems to be more and more attracted to the money but
that is a relatively recent thing, counter to the old rules under
discussion.

[...]



And exactly how would keeping religious zealots and Timtron and me
off U.S. shortwave stations help "diversity of views" on the airwaves?



With every good wish,



Kevin.
--

Kevin Alfred Strom.

News: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/
The Works of R. P. Oliver: http://www.revilo-oliver.com
Personal site: http://www.kevin-strom.com

"CW" wrote in message
...

The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!

You know that is BS. That law is older than both of us. It was put in
place
long before any "large media"

NBC was formed in 1926, which certainly predates the FCC and probably
predates the FRC. When was this presumed law enacted? If it's actually a
FCC regulation, when did the FCC enact it?


. The sole purpose was to PREVENT large media
from controlling the airwaves. It was thought that it would be far more
beneficial to have small, reasonably local stations that would reflect the
view of local communities and provide a voice for differing points of
view.

There was only a small fraction of the stations on the air before WW2 as
there are now. In the 30s and 40s, radio was centered in the big cities.
Nearly all stations had to run network programming in order to survive.

There was very little local radio programming before WW2. Local
programming, such as it was, developed in the 50s, after the networks turned
their interest to television.


It is the same reason that you need federal approval to buy a media
outlet
such as radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It was thought, and
they
were correct, that diversity of views was a good thing and having a few
giant companies controlling the media would be counterproductive.


Giant companies such as NBC, CBS and Mutual controlled radio. Well, they
did split NBC.

You are
right in that the FCC seems to be more and more attracted to the money but
that is a relatively recent thing, counter to the old rules under
discussion.



Then why did the network backed stations get the best frequencies, the clear
channels and the highest power limits?

Why were the school affiliated stations ghettoized?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote in message
...

The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!

You know that is BS. That law is older than both of us. It was put in
place
long before any "large media"

NBC was formed in 1926, which certainly predates the FCC and probably
predates the FRC. When was this presumed law enacted? If it's actually a
FCC regulation, when did the FCC enact it?


. The sole purpose was to PREVENT large media
from controlling the airwaves. It was thought that it would be far more
beneficial to have small, reasonably local stations that would reflect
the
view of local communities and provide a voice for differing points of
view.

There was only a small fraction of the stations on the air before WW2 as
there are now. In the 30s and 40s, radio was centered in the big cities.
Nearly all stations had to run network programming in order to survive.

There was very little local radio programming before WW2. Local
programming, such as it was, developed in the 50s, after the networks
turned
their interest to television.


It is the same reason that you need federal approval to buy a media
outlet
such as radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It was thought, and
they
were correct, that diversity of views was a good thing and having a few
giant companies controlling the media would be counterproductive.


Giant companies such as NBC, CBS and Mutual controlled radio. Well, they
did split NBC.

You are
right in that the FCC seems to be more and more attracted to the money
but
that is a relatively recent thing, counter to the old rules under
discussion.



Then why did the network backed stations get the best frequencies, the
clear
channels and the highest power limits?

Why were the school affiliated stations ghettoized?

Frank Dresser



ghettoized? Hey Frank, is that from the same Co. that does Simonize? :)

B.H.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:37:29 -0500, pak wrote:

i just started listening to shortwave again after being away from it
for aobut 10 years. I seem to notice that the short wave bands are
totally dominated by nothing but religious subjects and shows. Am I
just listening at the wroing time or wrong bands or does anyone agree
with this observation?

This is why shortwave sucks. Here is the break down.

10,000 shortwave broadcasters.

4000 foreign language
2000 too weak to hear
3000 religion
1000 boring shows