| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why is BBC World Service reducing its short wave provision?
"Short wave listening around the world is declining.
The downward trend is accelerating: the global short wave audience for BBC World Service has dropped from 122 million in 1996 to 97 million in 2003. Like other international broadcasters, BBC World Service has been adjusting its short wave provisions in line with global demand changes. Alternative ways to listen At the same time BBC World Service has been investing in new delivery methods, all with the improved audibility now preferred by audiences, such as FM, cable, satellite and online. BBC World Service is committed to making the best use of the money it receives from the government and has had considerable success in attracting audiences to these new methods of delivery; more than 50 million are using these and the numbers are growing fast. Separately, online usage has grown from three million page impressions every month in late 1998 to almost 300 million by 2004, which is equivalent to 18 million unique users. Alongside in-depth news and information, programmes are available streamed both live and on demand at the convenience of the listener. There are now more ways to listen to BBC World Service broadcasts than ever before. To check for availability in your region please click here." http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us...ort_wave.shtml |
Yeah, but their amount of shortwave listeners has declined only since
they reduced their broadcasting schedules, as far as I know. |
Invader3K wrote: Yeah, but their amount of shortwave listeners has declined only since they reduced their broadcasting schedules, as far as I know. It would seem that way wouldn't it? dxAce Michigan USA |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:47:27 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Terry"
wrote: "Short wave listening around the world is declining. The downward trend is accelerating: the global short wave audience for BBC World Service has dropped from 122 million in 1996 to 97 million in 2003. Like other international broadcasters, BBC World Service has been adjusting its short wave provisions in line with global demand changes. Alternative ways to listen At the same time BBC World Service has been investing in new delivery methods, all with the improved audibility now preferred by audiences, such as FM, cable, satellite and online. BBC World Service is committed to making the best use of the money it receives from the government and has had considerable success in attracting audiences to these new methods of delivery; more than 50 million are using these and the numbers are growing fast. Separately, online usage has grown from three million page impressions every month in late 1998 to almost 300 million by 2004, which is equivalent to 18 million unique users. Alongside in-depth news and information, programmes are available streamed both live and on demand at the convenience of the listener. There are now more ways to listen to BBC World Service broadcasts than ever before. To check for availability in your region please click here." http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us...ort_wave.shtml 1) When push comes to shove, shortwave frequently goes where the new methods can't. For example, the King of Nepal shut off 'net connections and FM local relays of the Beeb but it is far harder to shut down shortwave. Also, I have never heard of a shortwave transmitter which could not take on further listeners because of network overloads. 2) Once you go on the internet, you don't need BBCWS anymore - you might as well listen to Beeb domestic. For example, I rarely listen to BBCWS on the internet but I am a frequent listener to the satellite network BBC7 (with old comedy and drama) and Radio 4, each of which is streamed. |
They need to put some pretty wimmins on BBC America,on my DirecTV for me
to look at instead of that ugly looking old cow they have on there nowdays.She looks like ****. cuhulin |
Well, there are signs that shortwave listening is on the decline if you
look at the number of new hf receiver models being offered and the numker of companies making them. The frequencies listed in publications like MT seems to be smaller than before too. The BBC like so many other national radio stations are looking for ways to cut costs when budgets are lean and still get their message out. Going to the internet, cable tv, satellite radio and local rebroadcast of downlinked signals are obvious ways to do that. Wish the excitement for shortwave broadcasts was like it was from the 1930's through the 1950's. Back then broadcasts over shortwave were the fastest way to find out what was happening around the world. Many of those furniture grade wood cased radios had both MW and shortwave bands. Today there are numerous alternatives to shortwave radio and the major boradcasters are incresingly turning to those media. Mike Terry wrote: "Short wave listening around the world is declining. The downward trend is accelerating: the global short wave audience for BBC World Service has dropped from 122 million in 1996 to 97 million in 2003. Like other international broadcasters, BBC World Service has been adjusting its short wave provisions in line with global demand changes. Alternative ways to listen At the same time BBC World Service has been investing in new delivery methods, all with the improved audibility now preferred by audiences, such as FM, cable, satellite and online. BBC World Service is committed to making the best use of the money it receives from the government and has had considerable success in attracting audiences to these new methods of delivery; more than 50 million are using these and the numbers are growing fast. Separately, online usage has grown from three million page impressions every month in late 1998 to almost 300 million by 2004, which is equivalent to 18 million unique users. Alongside in-depth news and information, programmes are available streamed both live and on demand at the convenience of the listener. There are now more ways to listen to BBC World Service broadcasts than ever before. To check for availability in your region please click here." http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us...ort_wave.shtml |
Joel Rubin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:47:27 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Terry" wrote: "Short wave listening around the world is declining. The downward trend is accelerating: the global short wave audience for BBC World Service has dropped from 122 million in 1996 to 97 million in 2003. Like other international broadcasters, BBC World Service has been adjusting its short wave provisions in line with global demand changes. Alternative ways to listen At the same time BBC World Service has been investing in new delivery methods, all with the improved audibility now preferred by audiences, such as FM, cable, satellite and online. BBC World Service is committed to making the best use of the money it receives from the government and has had considerable success in attracting audiences to these new methods of delivery; more than 50 million are using these and the numbers are growing fast. Separately, online usage has grown from three million page impressions every month in late 1998 to almost 300 million by 2004, which is equivalent to 18 million unique users. Alongside in-depth news and information, programmes are available streamed both live and on demand at the convenience of the listener. There are now more ways to listen to BBC World Service broadcasts than ever before. To check for availability in your region please click here." http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us...ort_wave.shtml 1) When push comes to shove, shortwave frequently goes where the new methods can't. For example, the King of Nepal shut off 'net connections and FM local relays of the Beeb but it is far harder to shut down shortwave. I've been saying this for weeks, yet nobody has been listening. Nepal was a warning shot over the bow of the BBC and every other shortwave broadcaster (Voice of America, anyone?) who thinks that FM and the net can replace shortwave. I figure that it will take a first world country-such as the USA-doing what his majesty did in Nepal to make SW broadcasters sit up and take notice. An Iraqi insurgent takeover of a Sawa FM outlet might work, too. Also, I have never heard of a shortwave transmitter which could not take on further listeners because of network overloads. The old bugaboo of the net-never enough bandwidth. As bandwidth expands, so does content, like a goldfish that expands to fit its environment. Now that people have broadband, they download whole movies. People didn't do that with 14.4 modem connections and 80 MB hard drives. I suppose if they invent a fatter internet pipe than broadband, people will invent more and bigger content for it. Analog over the air radio doesn't have this problem, obviously. All it will take is some 13 year old hacker shutting down the internet for a while for people to realize that the internet isn't reliable yet. Not to mention security, which is a whole other post... 2) Once you go on the internet, you don't need BBCWS anymore - you might as well listen to Beeb domestic. For example, I rarely listen to BBCWS on the internet but I am a frequent listener to the satellite network BBC7 (with old comedy and drama) and Radio 4, each of which is streamed. The BBC seems to think that it can put the BBCWS on just a handful of FM outlets and have it survive. I really don't think so. Also, has it occured to them that the decline in SW listeners has been a result of them cutting out whole continents (NAm and Aus) from their services and reducing transmissions to others? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
BBC is very left wing biased (bi-assed) too.I have noticed that for many
years. cuhulin |
Joel Rubin wrote in message hlink.net...
1) When push comes to shove, shortwave frequently goes where the new methods can't. For example, the King of Nepal shut off 'net connections and FM local relays of the Beeb but it is far harder to shut down shortwave. Well said. Actually, the reason FM station (103 MHz) only shut off the Nepali language broadcast (1500-1530 UTC). World service was/is available 24 hours a day in Kathmandu. So was BBC TV on cable networks. Most common folks are rediscovering shortwave once again to listen to Nepali language broadcast from foreign stations. Streaming audio can be heard over Internet for those folks who have access to net. But BBC does need to shut down some transmitters. Nothing more annoying than to tune the shortwave and when you think you found some exotic station, it turns out to be BEEB. |
|
Jim wrote: Joel Rubin wrote in message hlink.net... 1) When push comes to shove, shortwave frequently goes where the new methods can't. For example, the King of Nepal shut off 'net connections and FM local relays of the Beeb but it is far harder to shut down shortwave. Well said. Actually, the reason FM station (103 MHz) only shut off the Nepali language broadcast (1500-1530 UTC). World service was/is available 24 hours a day in Kathmandu. So was BBC TV on cable networks. Most common folks are rediscovering shortwave once again to listen to Nepali language broadcast from foreign stations. Streaming audio can be heard over Internet for those folks who have access to net. But BBC does need to shut down some transmitters. Nothing more annoying than to tune the shortwave and when you think you found some exotic station, it turns out to be BEEB. Then you need to get a clue! dxAce Michigan USA |
How do they know how many are listening to their short wave
transmissions? They've never asked me. Have they asked anyone? Joe |
Joe Analssandrini wrote: How do they know how many are listening to their short wave transmissions? They've never asked me. Have they asked anyone? Apparently so, as they say that they carry out extensive audience research, as has the VOA. However, they've never asked me either. dxAce Michigan USA |
I also thought it was interesting that they seem to be keeping track of
"page impressions" (which I take to be 'hits) on their website. You can have a whole lot of hits without anyone actually bothering to read anything! Consequently, getting lots of hits does *not* mean you're getting your message out. Steve |
The world is left-wing compared to the United States. We are alone in
the fascist wilderness. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:48:43 -0600, wrote: BBC is very left wing biased (bi-assed) too.I have noticed that for many years. cuhulin |
David wrote: The world is left-wing compared to the United States. We are alone in the fascist wilderness. Well, you are certainly not alone in your 'tardism, 'tard. Go tote it, boy. dxAce Michigan USA On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:48:43 -0600, wrote: BBC is very left wing biased (bi-assed) too.I have noticed that for many years. cuhulin |
Shortwave radio is not going to die out completely, it's use on
Broadcast stns will be greatly reduced. Back in the old days shortwave was probably one of the best methods to find info on foreign countries, today you just bring up your web browser and type in (whatver country) food+culture and out it pops right there with photos, videos, all things that SW can't typically bring. |
"David" wrote in message ... On 19 Mar 2005 19:23:57 -0800, (Jim) wrote: The BBC West Asia service is available Free to anyone in Nepal with a $200 Worldspace receiver. Which is about twice the average monthly income of a Nepalese, I believe. |
They share.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:45:25 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On 19 Mar 2005 19:23:57 -0800, (Jim) wrote: The BBC West Asia service is available Free to anyone in Nepal with a $200 Worldspace receiver. Which is about twice the average monthly income of a Nepalese, I believe. |
wrote in message oups.com... I also thought it was interesting that they seem to be keeping track of "page impressions" (which I take to be 'hits) on their website. You can have a whole lot of hits without anyone actually bothering to read anything! Consequently, getting lots of hits does *not* mean you're getting your message out. Hell, search engines do a lot of hitting these days; popularity shouldn't be based on the number of hits a web site gets. --Mike L. |
Yeah, and when they can get a shortwave radio for
1/5 the cost of the Worldspace receiver, guess what they'll get?? --Mike L. "David" wrote in message ... They share. On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:45:25 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On 19 Mar 2005 19:23:57 -0800, (Jim) wrote: The BBC West Asia service is available Free to anyone in Nepal with a $200 Worldspace receiver. Which is about twice the average monthly income of a Nepalese, I believe. |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:25:04 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Yeah, and when they can get a shortwave radio for 1/5 the cost of the Worldspace receiver, guess what they'll get?? --Mike L. Y'all really are dinosaurs. It's the 21st Century. Lo: http://www.firstvoiceint.org/How/Satellite.html |
David wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:25:04 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Yeah, and when they can get a shortwave radio for 1/5 the cost of the Worldspace receiver, guess what they'll get?? --Mike L. Y'all really are dinosaurs. It's the 21st Century. Lo: http://www.firstvoiceint.org/How/Satellite.html Nah, we're just still smart enough to operate a SW receiver, 'tard boy! dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:25:04 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Yeah, and when they can get a shortwave radio for 1/5 the cost of the Worldspace receiver, guess what they'll get?? --Mike L. Y'all really are dinosaurs. It's the 21st Century. Lo: http://www.firstvoiceint.org/How/Satellite.html Move along, 'tard boy... there's no satellite radio to be heard here. dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005 19:23:57 -0800, (Jim) wrote: ...... The BBC West Asia service is available Free to anyone in Nepal with a $200 Worldspace receiver. http://www.worldspace.com/programmin..._asiastar.html Except that in April Worldspace is going to encryption and will require a monthly license, more than the monthly income of most Nepalis etc. Radio for the elites indeed. -- -\_,-~-\___...__._._._._._._._._._._._. For real Dxing, see]http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~vz6g-iwt/index.html |
Dan Say wrote:
David wrote: On 19 Mar 2005 19:23:57 -0800, (Jim) wrote: ...... The BBC West Asia service is available Free to anyone in Nepal with a $200 Worldspace receiver. http://www.worldspace.com/programmin..._asiastar.html Except that in April Worldspace is going to encryption and will require a monthly license, more than the monthly income of most Nepalis etc. Radio for the elites indeed. Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. So they're going to satellite radio and FM relays in cities where the rich and powerful congregate (there's one in San Francisco but not in Sacramento; I doubt very much that Omaha will ever have any BBC programming). Apparently the BBC is just interested in narrowcasting-the selected targeting of the rich and powerful to the exclusion of everybody else. It's a sad end to what was once the great news reporting service in the world, the one that tried to tell the news honestly to as many people as it could reach. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:25:04 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Yeah, and when they can get a shortwave radio for 1/5 the cost of the Worldspace receiver, guess what they'll get?? --Mike L. Y'all really are dinosaurs. It's the 21st Century. Lo: http://www.firstvoiceint.org/How/Satellite.html Still costs too much, because the "as little as $150" is not what they will pay; in the third world, it tends to cost higher. Many people there already own shortwaves and they don't have our need to have the latest gadget. If it's the 21st Century, how come we're still listening to AM radio and watching analog televisions?? --Mike L. |
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Yes, they have. Don't have a link at hand, but they have indeed indicated in the past that they are more interested perhaps in reaching the elites who have a hand in shaping policy, etc. You'd have to go back and research the shortwave literature. There's a reference in the 2003 Passport, page 81. The current head of the BBC sniffs at the idea of wanting to be heard by Detroit automobile workers. --Mike L. |
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:21:18 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Still costs too much, because the "as little as $150" is not what they will pay; in the third world, it tends to cost higher. Many people there already own shortwaves and they don't have our need to have the latest gadget. If it's the 21st Century, how come we're still listening to AM radio and watching analog televisions?? --Mike L. $68 wholesale. There is a foundation. AM radio and analog TV aren't relevant. Tell that one to the people who own the stations. Locally, the AM stations do quite well against the FM stations, and there's a big reason why some industry types are getting worried about the cutover to digital television; not enough people are buying digital tv's. --Mike L. |
Jim wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Jim "In the United States, for instance, we are not saying we are trying to reach everybody. We are not stopping people listening but our target audience group there would be decision makers and opinion formers." http://www.publications.parliament.u...26/2050704.htm Google is your friend. -- Eric F. Richards "The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents." - Nathaniel S. Borenstein |
Jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:31:07 -0700, Eric F. Richards wrote: Jim wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Jim "In the United States, for instance, we are not saying we are trying to reach everybody. We are not stopping people listening but our target audience group there would be decision makers and opinion formers." http://www.publications.parliament.u...26/2050704.htm Google is your friend. Not really. I don't have time to research every wacky claim made here. Besides, that quote doesn't exactly support the above claim. Well, you are certainly wacky if you can't read and understand what is being said. Feel free though to try and support whatever 'wacky' claim YOU wish to make. dxAce Michigan USA |
Michael Lawson wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Yes, they have. Don't have a link at hand, but they have indeed indicated in the past that they are more interested perhaps in reaching the elites who have a hand in shaping policy, etc. You'd have to go back and research the shortwave literature. There's a reference in the 2003 Passport, page 81. The current head of the BBC sniffs at the idea of wanting to be heard by Detroit automobile workers. That's what I was referring to. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:21:18 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Still costs too much, because the "as little as $150" is not what they will pay; in the third world, it tends to cost higher. Many people there already own shortwaves and they don't have our need to have the latest gadget. If it's the 21st Century, how come we're still listening to AM radio and watching analog televisions?? --Mike L. $68 wholesale. There is a foundation. AM radio and analog TV aren't relevant. This would be why 6 of the top 10 billing stations in the USA are AM? 17 of the top 40 stations? Including the second and 4th highest billers in the US? |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message .. . This would be why 6 of the top 10 billing stations in the USA are AM? 17 of the top 40 stations? Including the second and 4th highest billers in the US? Just an aside: Which are the six top-billing AM stations in the U.S. and how are they spread throughout the top 10? I'd guess that WGN is one of the six, but not having any data at hand, I can't make a really good guess on the other five. Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don Forsling "Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States" |
running dogg wrote:
Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. So they're going to satellite radio and FM relays in cities where the rich and powerful congregate (there's one in San Francisco but not in Sacramento; I doubt very much that Omaha will ever have any BBC programming). Where is the BBC World Service FM relay in San Francisco? The only FM presence I am aware of in the area is KQED FM, and that's just one hour or so of news per day, isn't it? -- Don |
Leonard Martin wrote:
In article , running dogg wrote: Michael Lawson wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Yes, they have. Don't have a link at hand, but they have indeed indicated in the past that they are more interested perhaps in reaching the elites who have a hand in shaping policy, etc. You'd have to go back and research the shortwave literature. There's a reference in the 2003 Passport, page 81. The current head of the BBC sniffs at the idea of wanting to be heard by Detroit automobile workers. That's what I was referring to. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Hey Running Dog, You seem to have the font for your newsposts set very, very tiny. It's very hard to read. It could a problem on my end, but I don't think so. Everyone else's posts come over with type twice or more the size of yours. You might want to look into your settings. I think it's got something to do with newsreader incompatibility. My newsreader doesn't have a font setting that I can see (but I'll look) so what looks normal to me may look bad to you. The type looks fine on this end. I will admit that when I try to print an article the font is very small but I thought that was just an issue with my printer. What newsreader are you using? I'm using some obscure reader that was the only one on Tucows that had online reading at the time I got this computer (2002). ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Don Del Grande wrote:
running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. So they're going to satellite radio and FM relays in cities where the rich and powerful congregate (there's one in San Francisco but not in Sacramento; I doubt very much that Omaha will ever have any BBC programming). Where is the BBC World Service FM relay in San Francisco? The only FM presence I am aware of in the area is KQED FM, and that's just one hour or so of news per day, isn't it? From what I've heard, KALW, the SF school district station, broadcasts Newshour at 2pm. I've never actually heard it here, but I read that in the Chronicle in an article making fun of the BBC's style. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Leonard Martin wrote:
In article , running dogg wrote: Michael Lawson wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:23:26 -0800, running dogg wrote: Problem is, the elites are all the suits at the BBC care about. They've even said that they don't want to be heard by the average person. They have? Link, please? Yes, they have. Don't have a link at hand, but they have indeed indicated in the past that they are more interested perhaps in reaching the elites who have a hand in shaping policy, etc. You'd have to go back and research the shortwave literature. There's a reference in the 2003 Passport, page 81. The current head of the BBC sniffs at the idea of wanting to be heard by Detroit automobile workers. That's what I was referring to. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Hey Running Dog, You seem to have the font for your newsposts set very, very tiny. It's very hard to read. It could a problem on my end, but I don't think so. Everyone else's posts come over with type twice or more the size of yours. You might want to look into your settings. I found the "Font" drop down menu and changed the font to 15. That should be better on your eyes, although it makes the spacing of my replies look funny. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
-=jd=- wrote:
On Tue 22 Mar 2005 08:35:38p, "David Eduardo" wrote in message : "David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:21:18 -0500, "Michael Lawson" wrote: Still costs too much, because the "as little as $150" is not what they will pay; in the third world, it tends to cost higher. Many people there already own shortwaves and they don't have our need to have the latest gadget. If it's the 21st Century, how come we're still listening to AM radio and watching analog televisions?? --Mike L. $68 wholesale. There is a foundation. AM radio and analog TV aren't relevant. This would be why 6 of the top 10 billing stations in the USA are AM? 17 of the top 40 stations? Including the second and 4th highest billers in the US? One of these days, Rickets will realize that it is *his* opinions and view- points that are not relevant. The subsequent implosion of his ego should register on every functioning seismograph on the face of the Earth. It should be good for a chuckle or two... Can this sort of thing be predicted, so that I'm not in LA when it happens? I mean, the implosion of an ego that size could wipe out dozens of square miles. It could create a massive tsunami, create new earth formations. Now imagine what would happen if EVERY inflated ego in LA imploded. Not a pretty picture. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com