"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

Good post. Good luck convincing Peter...

You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21
hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

Wow. That's impressive. Just about a statistical "everybody". So how
many
more people will be listening after IBOC is fully rolled out?

HD could, with HD2 channels, bring light users up in listening level.
However, since total radio cume has been so flat for decades, it is
unl,ikely it will increase reach. On the other hand, it reduces the appeal
of paid media significantly by doubling the FM offerings.

To be fair, there has always been about 5% to 6% that do not listen in a
week, and another 6% to 10% that listens very lightly.

Many of these non-users or light users are potential satellite users. 15% of
the US adult population is around 40,000,000 persons who don't much use
radio right now.

On the other hand, before changing to the Portable People Meter, the BBM in
Canada (the broadcaster owned ratings company there) a study was done to
show why that 5% did not listen and why the light listeners were light.

The 5% in Canada was made up of about half who did not use radio, period.
the other half did not use that week due to travel, a family emergency,
hospitalization, travel, etc. but usually did.

The light users were often people who only listened when they could, but
could not listen while commuting on public transportation, at work, etc., so
they listened avidly but less. The rest listened less because they did not
find what they wanted on the radio.

These figures have been pretty consistent for decades.

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The
reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling /
requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.

The first top 40 station was KOWH in Omaha in 8/52. It played pop hits of
the day. It was not until the mid-50's that Top 40 stations added rock 'n'
roll, and they were nearly 100% consistent with playing 40 researched songs.
Period. There was nothing scandalous, as the target young demos accepted the
new music trends and no station that got a 30 or 40 share was "scndalous."


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew
nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.

and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I
have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so
I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.

There are very few commercail classicals left. Period.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and
arcane. Interference on first adjacents is irrelevant if nobody in the
interference zone listens to first adjacents. The principles of physics do
not change. It is the way radio is used that has changed, and there are more
than a few Luddites here trying to bring back things that died decades ago.

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

And gringa, also please tell us why it's a good practice to use three channels
instead of just one.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is about
20 years behind the times.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your statement.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night
skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment
to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even
in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is
about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your
statement.

I already told you. go back asd see the radio usage in the three yearss
following the lift of the freeze. Night radio died in less than 36 months.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night
skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment
to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even
in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is
about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your
statement.

I already told you. go back asd see the radio usage in the three yearss
following the lift of the freeze. Night radio died in less than 36 months.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa? And what the hell does that have to
do with QRMing two adjacent channels?

Pull your head out of your ass, little girl, and stop being a shill for
iBiquity.

LMFAO at the HFBPO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Arra,what's a gringa?
cuhulin

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and
many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa?

If you want to discuss, cut out the stupid efforts to offend. They are
merely distractions.

What it has to do with the USA is that the AM rules were mostly written in
the 30's when night AM reception was where most tune-ins occured. Today,
most AM listening is in daytime hours, on receivers that are musch more
selective. So the adjacent channel rules are simply 50 years out of date,
and do not reflect current analog technology or the use of radio.

And what the hell does that have to
do with QRMing two adjacent channels?

It is only objectionable if people have regular listening disturbed by it.
They don't.

Pull your head out of your ass, little girl, and stop being a shill for
iBiquity.

The system is good. Better than any other alternative.