"David Eduardo" wrote:



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.


You really are stupid.

With your poor judgement, I wouldn't trust you to cut my grass.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:19:54 GMT, "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.

I get Seattle very solid every night. Must be ducting on the coastal
discontinuityor something. Doesn't sound like normal skywave DX.

''KO-MO One Thousand News...''

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



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.


You really are stupid.

The fact is that a local DJ in New York and his dealings with record
companies is not of much interest to anyone outside the listening audience
of that station.

As to the hearings, how many committee hearings are there that get
essentially no press coverage? The payola hearings were not of much interest
then, any mor ehtan they are today.

With your poor judgement, I wouldn't trust you to cut my grass.

This is not judgment. This is fact. You, on the other hand, did not know
when Top 40 started, that it was not originally a rock 'n' roll format, and
that such stations had very tight regimented rotations and playlists.

wrote in message
...
Arra,what's a gringa?

I guess he thinks it is a female gringo.

David Eduardo wrote:

"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.

You got your head up your ass, gringa!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"David Eduardo" wrote:


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.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote:


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.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

He's a fraud all right. I sat around today considering writing a book. The working
title is 'HFBPO' The Unauthorized Biography of David Frackelton Gleason.

It should be a hoot.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David Eduardo wrote:

"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.

Who says? You, gringa? You need to take your little dog and pony show back
across the border.

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

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


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.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

The sector of radio I am in has reported double digit growth in each of the
last 10 years, and should do the same this year. In fact, that same sector
has about 25% higher radio usage than "the rest" of the market.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"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.

Who says? You, gringa? You need to take your little dog and pony show back
across the border.

Except for some changes in the skywave protection rules and the breakdown of
the (useless) clears, the exiting rules are based on the 1934 ones. So the
source there, fella, is the FCC.

As to listening. I refer you to any library that has a full collection of
Broadcasting Yearbooks through the late 50's. All those show the usage of
radio, and one can see the post-lift of the freeze effect on night radio,
where in a matter of 30 months, night listening to radio declined to very
low levels. As to the later history of AM and night listening, Arbitron
started measuring in 1965 and you can track AM shares at night to the
present very tiny levels.

All this data is independently verifiable. But admitting that would be tough
for you.