Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Deutsche Welle DRM on 3995 kHz
"Byung Myung Sying" wrote in message ... 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. Absolutely the opposite? Please tell me which of these points are wrong: 1) The great transmitting stations with huge antenna farms which moved thousands of messages across continents and oceans are now almost entirely gone. 2) The news services are largely off shortwave. 3)Most military and diplomatic traffic is now carried off shortwave. 4) Shortwave broadcasters are reducing the number of hours they broadcast. 5) Several international broadcasters have dropped shortwave entirely. I hear much less activity on shortwave than I did back in the 70s, especially outside the SW broadcast and amateur bands. I'll admit I don't keep detailed records of such things, but I really do think I'm correct. Please detail just how SW spectrum has become less available and more costly 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. I never suggested the DRMers were lawbreakers. Not that that would much of a point, because SW law isn't often enforced on an international level. There is a good technical reason why DRM broadcasts should be segregated. DRM does cause more interference, despite using the same channel width as what's allocated to a standard broadcaster. DRM sounds like it has an even distribution of energy across it's bandwidth, which means it has much more energy 1 kHz or so off the carrier than a standard AM signal. 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. Great. Let the DRM broadcasters play with of the frequencies RCA and AT&T aren't using anymore. Frank Dresser |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Deutsche Welle Time and Frequency Changes | Shortwave | |||
Deutsche Welle Relay Station At Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, Unharmed | Shortwave | |||
Deutsche Welle - budget cuts looming | Shortwave | |||
Deutsche Welle - B'04 | Shortwave | |||
Deutsche Welle | Shortwave |