People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

YMMV

"David" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2005 08:09:51 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


Yah, BBC screwed it up IMHO..
Should've stayed with Shortwave..

They could have added windmill farms to provide electricity for
broadcasting.

Windmill farms are not going to put HF radios into people's homes.
Shortwave broadcasting is over. (Except for religious nuts and a few
assorted despots).

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:02 -0500, "JLewis"
wrote:


People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

Exactly.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:02 -0500, "JLewis"
wrote:

People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

YMMV

This is a logically good argument, but it falls short when portability
comes into play.

The whole reason why radio (per se; not specifically shortwave)
remains so popular despite TV and the Internet is because you can take
a portable radio with you wherever you go; into the garden, in your
car, in the bathroom, on holiday, in a tent, in a caravan (trailer),
in a motorhome...

I can't do this with a computer. Firstly a laptop costs twenty or more
times more money than a radio, secondly the battery life is
considerably less, but mostly there just isn't universal affordable
wifi or mobile broadband yet.

I used to be able to take a small shortwave whip-antenna radio on
holiday to America and listen to the BBC back home. Now I can't.

Now either I have to carry around thirty metres of random wire and
some very detailed frequency charts, or I have to lug my laptop which
can't stay away from the mains electricty for more than 3 hours and
requires me to subscribe to expensive mobile internet connections (or
worse, expose my security to the prospect of hijacking someone else's
open network).

I can't overstate how ****ed off I am about this. The BBC made their
overseas radio services difficult, expensive and non-portable. I miss
my radio.

And to top it all, my TV licence, paying the BBC, has gone up again!
If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com

"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
...

[snip]


I used to be able to take a small shortwave whip-antenna radio on
holiday to America and listen to the BBC back home. Now I can't.

Now either I have to carry around thirty metres of random wire and
some very detailed frequency charts, or I have to lug my laptop which
can't stay away from the mains electricty for more than 3 hours and
requires me to subscribe to expensive mobile internet connections (or
worse, expose my security to the prospect of hijacking someone else's
open network).

The World Service is still often heard very well in the US, but, you're
generally correct. The World Service isn't as reliable here as it used to
be.


I can't overstate how ****ed off I am about this. The BBC made their
overseas radio services difficult, expensive and non-portable. I miss
my radio.

And to top it all, my TV licence, paying the BBC, has gone up again!
If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

In theory, you could give up TV and avoid the license fee. However, the
World Service is funded by a "government grant".

"BBC World Service is funded by Government grant and not your TV licence.
Profits from separate BBC commercial services help to keep the licence fee
low. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

I take it that "Government grant" is a polite way of saying "You're paying
for it, whether you like it or not".


Frank Dresser

If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

My wife absolutely loved that show -

Is it still on over there? Here in the U.S. we used to watch it via our PBS
station, but they dropped it several years ago...

If it's still on, don't tell my wife - she'll probably start dropping hints
about moving to England.

YMMV

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
...

[snip]


I used to be able to take a small shortwave whip-antenna radio on
holiday to America and listen to the BBC back home. Now I can't.

Now either I have to carry around thirty metres of random wire and
some very detailed frequency charts, or I have to lug my laptop which
can't stay away from the mains electricty for more than 3 hours and
requires me to subscribe to expensive mobile internet connections (or
worse, expose my security to the prospect of hijacking someone else's
open network).

The World Service is still often heard very well in the US, but, you're
generally correct. The World Service isn't as reliable here as it used to
be.


I can't overstate how ****ed off I am about this. The BBC made their
overseas radio services difficult, expensive and non-portable. I miss
my radio.

And to top it all, my TV licence, paying the BBC, has gone up again!
If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

In theory, you could give up TV and avoid the license fee. However, the
World Service is funded by a "government grant".

"BBC World Service is funded by Government grant and not your TV licence.
Profits from separate BBC commercial services help to keep the licence fee
low. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

I take it that "Government grant" is a polite way of saying "You're paying
for it, whether you like it or not".


Frank Dresser

"In theory, you could give up TV and avoid the license fee"

From what I've heard, that's easier said than done, as some people have
stated that the TVLA assumes the following :

- that all homes have televisions

- that anyone who owns a TV is using it to receive TV signals (even if
the TV is used only for watching video tapes/DVDs and/or playing video
games)

Andrew Oakley wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:02 -0500, "JLewis"
wrote:

People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

YMMV

This is a logically good argument, but it falls short when portability
comes into play.

The whole reason why radio (per se; not specifically shortwave)
remains so popular despite TV and the Internet is because you can take
a portable radio with you wherever you go; into the garden, in your
car, in the bathroom, on holiday, in a tent, in a caravan (trailer),
in a motorhome...

I can't do this with a computer. Firstly a laptop costs twenty or more
times more money than a radio, secondly the battery life is
considerably less, but mostly there just isn't universal affordable
wifi or mobile broadband yet.

I used to be able to take a small shortwave whip-antenna radio on
holiday to America and listen to the BBC back home. Now I can't.

Now either I have to carry around thirty metres of random wire and
some very detailed frequency charts, or I have to lug my laptop which
can't stay away from the mains electricty for more than 3 hours and
requires me to subscribe to expensive mobile internet connections (or
worse, expose my security to the prospect of hijacking someone else's
open network).

I can't overstate how ****ed off I am about this. The BBC made their
overseas radio services difficult, expensive and non-portable. I miss
my radio.

And to top it all, my TV licence, paying the BBC, has gone up again!
If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com

Agreed. Though portable satellite receivers are certainly possible.
XM even has a model, though I prefer Sirius.

As for the new Dr. Who -- as someone who was not a fan of the original
series at all, it was a pleasant shock when a friend came over with a
captured video from a couple episodes. Brilliant.

On 2005-06-21 13:52:02 -0400, "JLewis" said:

People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

YMMV


Nonsense.




"David" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2005 08:09:51 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


Yah, BBC screwed it up IMHO..
Should've stayed with Shortwave..

They could have added windmill farms to provide electricity for
broadcasting.

Windmill farms are not going to put HF radios into people's homes.
Shortwave broadcasting is over. (Except for religious nuts and a few
assorted despots).


--
Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can
never go back to Sea World."

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:02 -0500, "JLewis"
wrote:

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

Bill Gates made the same accusation about cars. A top honcho at GM
asked an auditorium full of people if they'd buy a car that crashed
twice a day.. A car where you'd have to stop and reinstall the engine
for no particular reason.

Basically, cars are using the same technology as Henry Ford's. Power
source, drive train, tires, etc. The improvements have been cosmetic
and evolutionary. It's been proven to be extremely reliable and,
unless you're a very bad driver, rarely crashes from mechanical
failure.

Rich