I wrote

Shortwave DX'ers have always had to struggle agains QRN from the
USSR's "woodpecker", the RTTY news services etc. DRM is no better
and no worse than any of these noises.


Frank replied:
DRM noise may be no worse than other sources of interference were, but there
is no longer any justification for such interference. There's plenty of
open spectrum now. -

I reply to Frank:
No the case is absolutely the opposite. Spectrum space is much more
costly and less available than it was. The DRM'ers are using
absolutely legal, internationally allocated frequencies for their
transmissions. There is no legal or technical reason for them to
change their frequencies.

Frank wrote:

Satellite radio is an even better solution from the reliability and real
estate point of view.

DRM is an attempt to compete with satellite radio. -snip-

I reply:

Granted that satellite radio is a much better form of shortwave
broadcast transmission -- that's what I said in my last post! Read it
again: "It is questionable as to whether DRM will ever become viable
due to shortwave's unpredictablility and the high cost of real estate
necessary for broadcast of shortwave signals". I will also add that
the environmental impact from a 200 kW shortwave broadcast transmitter
is much greater than that of a satellite uplinker.

As to your argument that SWL'ers enjoy the unpredictability of
shortwave, I've been at it for many years and have logged and verified
thousands of commercial, utility, and ham contacts. DRM DX'ing is
another interesting challenge to the hobbyist.