"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:54:38 +0100, "Colin"
wrote:

SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

I would venture to suggest that more than 90% of listeners to
shortwave broadcasting are "amateur DXers". Normal people do not even
know what shortwave is, far less listen to it.

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

That is SUCH an US-centric response. Just because Americans don't use it
doesn't mean other parts of the world don't.

Do you think people living in Middle Eastern, South American, Asian or
African countries know what Shortwave is?

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message news:UEsfd.775299

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

.... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.


Az.

"Aztech" wrote in message
...
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news:UEsfd.775299

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during
the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.



The rest of the world has their own satellite radio service(s). The name
escapes me at the moment, but there is one service that covers most of the
(non-US) world in several regions.

I reiterate however, that people in third world and oppressive countries
will not have access/not be able to afford the receivers for either this or
DRM.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

"Aztech" wrote in message
...
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news:UEsfd.775299

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during
the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.



The rest of the world has their own satellite radio service(s). The name
escapes me at the moment, but there is one service that covers most of the
(non-US) world in several regions.

Worldspace, quite a proportion of its output now seems to be encrypted and aimed
at Western travellers.

I reiterate however, that people in third world and oppressive countries
will not have access/not be able to afford the receivers for either this or
DRM.

Of course that reasoning also renders Worldspace redundant.


Az.

In article , Walt Davidson
writes
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:19:30 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

Of course that reasoning also renders Worldspace redundant.

Worldspace rendered itself redundant the day it started charging a
subscription for its services. How many of the population in
undeveloped third world countries are going to pay $$$ to listen to a
handful of foreign radio stations?

Probably enough skilled people living and working in the capital cities
often for foreign companies on foreign salaries. It's the people outside
this category who can not afford it, but since they did not pay before
what have Worldspace lost? You also need to consider how many people in
a third world country could afford to buy a ~100 GBP radio.

--
Ian G8ILZ

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , Walt Davidson
writes
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:19:30 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

Of course that reasoning also renders Worldspace redundant.

Worldspace rendered itself redundant the day it started charging a
subscription for its services. How many of the population in
undeveloped third world countries are going to pay $$$ to listen to a
handful of foreign radio stations?

Probably enough skilled people living and working in the capital cities
often for foreign companies on foreign salaries. It's the people outside
this category who can not afford it, but since they did not pay before
what have Worldspace lost? You also need to consider how many people in a
third world country could afford to buy a ~100 GBP radio.

--
Ian G8ILZ

Of course poor people will not buy 100 GBP radios, or even $100 radios. And
they certainly won't be able to justify a regular subscription.

I don't think anyone is expecting the 'huddled masses' to be amongst the
first purchasers of DRM radios.

But as with all new technology the price comes down rapidly. My DAB tuner
cost me GBP 350 3 years ago - I saw a DAB radio in the supermarket tonight
for GBP 49, and a DVB adapter for GBP 25. You'd be lucky to get an analogue
SW receiver for GBP 25.

From the examples I have heard DRM is a step change in reception for
international broadcasting and, eventually, LF & MF broadcasting. If you
want any form of viable broadcasting to remain in these bands DRM is
certainly a better option than the status quo which will continue to
dwindle.

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Colin" wrote in message
...

Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?
IBOC sure is QRM for AM reception!


SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs,
not for the benefit of amateur DXers.

So why have so many countries been defunding international
broadcasting?
Could it be they think international broadcasting is a waste of
money? Why
would clearer signals make it less of a waste? If the
programming is worth
hearing, the listener will put up with occasional distortion
and fading.
-------------
Countries are finding that none of their
nationals are listening, Germans not listening
to DW, Brits not listening to BBCWS etc.
So the most important self-market is lost.
Only countries wise in diplomacy know that a
constant SW presence in the vernacular languages
(Pashto to Afghanistan, Spanish to the Aamericas, etc.)
will be useful in the future influence (rising incomes,
desire to buy quality imported goods, friendly to military
occupiers, etc. etc.)
Shortwave is a cheap fifth column for multiple externalities.


DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs
clearly, and tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like
it cause it sounds like noise on your (probably highly
expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning process to be as
difficult as possible.

International broadcating is boring, and bored listeners are
tuning out.
DRM won't fix that. The internet is a much better source for
news. End time preachers and conspiranoics are much more fun to
listen to.



Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

Frank Dresser

--
-\_,-~-\___...__._._._._._._._._._._._.
For real Dxing,
see]http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~vz6g-iwt/index.html

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Walt
Davidson writes
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:19:30 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

Of course that reasoning also renders Worldspace redundant.

Worldspace rendered itself redundant the day it started charging
a
subscription for its services. How many of the population in
undeveloped third world countries are going to pay $$$ to listen
to a handful of foreign radio stations?

Probably enough skilled people living and working in the capital
cities often for foreign companies on foreign salaries. It's the
people outside this category who can not afford it, but since
they did not pay before what have Worldspace lost? You also need
to consider how many people in a third world country could
afford to buy a ~100 GBP radio.
--------------
I was just in Nigeria where only the 10 or 20 dollars (USD)
Chinese radios are used. There are Sony's sold, but
Worldspace radios are very uncommon, and a friend only
got one as a prixe in a RFI contest, but otherwise couldn't
spend that kind of money for a radio.
Shortwave there had everything, from the Middle East, Europe
and Ascension, much of it for several hours of programming.
Worldspace is an idea, but in practice little used.
And my friend fried their radio so that they could only
use the earphones as the speaker circuit didn't work for
WorldSpace, and they moved every four months for economic
reasons and not every place was suitable for setting out the
WorldSpace without getting it ripped off.
--
-\_,-~-\___...__._._._._._._._._._._._.
For real Dxing,
see]http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~vz6g-iwt/index.html

In article , Colin
writes

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , Walt
Davidson writes
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:19:30 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

Of course that reasoning also renders Worldspace redundant.

Worldspace rendered itself redundant the day it started charging a
subscription for its services. How many of the population in
undeveloped third world countries are going to pay $$$ to listen to a
handful of foreign radio stations?

Probably enough skilled people living and working in the capital
cities often for foreign companies on foreign salaries. It's the
people outside this category who can not afford it, but since they
did not pay before what have Worldspace lost? You also need to
consider how many people in a third world country could afford to buy
a ~100 GBP radio.

Of course poor people will not buy 100 GBP radios, or even $100 radios.
And they certainly won't be able to justify a regular subscription.

Where the national average wage is equivalent to 2.5 GBP per day you
will find very few people will purchase a radio costing 100 GBP. You
might assume that with lower overheads the retail price might be lower
but the much smaller market could negate that effect.

I don't think anyone is expecting the 'huddled masses' to be amongst
the first purchasers of DRM radios.

The huddled masses lack the disposable income, and frequently have a low
expectation as a consequence.

But as with all new technology the price comes down rapidly. My DAB
tuner cost me GBP 350 3 years ago - I saw a DAB radio in the
supermarket tonight for GBP 49, and a DVB adapter for GBP 25. You'd be
lucky to get an analogue SW receiver for GBP 25.

I am not considering the price as new technology but once established,
DAB radios have prices from 50 to over 100 GBP. I am not sure that sails
will be large enough for anyone will build for the third world, and even
at 50 GBP it is still 20 days work. This is equivalent to a person in te
UK earning 12,000 GBP per year spending 1000 GBP on a radio; few could
spare that after the essentials of living.

From the examples I have heard DRM is a step change in reception for
international broadcasting and, eventually, LF & MF broadcasting. If
you want any form of viable broadcasting to remain in these bands DRM
is certainly a better option than the status quo which will continue to
dwindle.

Who broadcasts on short-wave, and why: Government information (and
propaganda) both to their own people and abroad. Very little is
commercial in nature, it is mostly for diplomatic representation.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,

Brenda Ann Dyer schreef:
I reiterate however, that people in third world and oppressive countries
will not have access/not be able to afford the receivers for either this or
DRM.

On the contrairy. DRM is the ideal way for oppressive regimes to
manufactor receivers that can only pick up the stations you want to
people to be able to listen to.
(based on the station-id, not only the frequency)

Well there ya go... another good reason to toss DRM into the bin.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



China has (IIRC) several hunderd MG transmittors all over the country
and is one biggest "pushers" for DRM.

Part of it might be because of the savings in transmissions-power; but I
think the possibility of "control" mechanism which are possible in DRM
radio-sets are also to "some" appeal to the Chinese gouvernement. :-)

BTW. Once China begins manufactoring DRM radio-sets en-masse, it will
not be a great surprise for the to pop-up in the "third world" countries
you mention.

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
VoIP: h323://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]