| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317284] |
Mon, 02 May 2016 15:53  |
|
|
Originally posted by: Simo
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:ng877u$oh8$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/2/2016 8:24 AM, JimP wrote:
>> On 2 May 2016 13:13:23 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2016-05-01, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 8:20:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some
>>> people
>>>> > who
>>>> >>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in
>>>> >>> the
>>> noisy
>>>> >>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is
>>>> >>> wasted.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> AM radio might still be broadcast, but it seems to be almost all
>>>> >> talk now--religious, call-in, news, and sports. Plenty of talk
>>>> >> on FM, too. I don't know how all that talk manages to keep an
>>>> >> audience to attract sponsors, but apparently it does.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think people these days are listening to satellite radio.
>>>> >
>>>> > SW broadccasts are also diminishing rapidly.
>>>> >
>>>> > /BAH
>>>>
>>>> Pity, one could hear all sort of odd stuff there.
>>>
>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> My copy of the World RAdio and TV Handbook mentions a big drop off in
>> SW broadcasts. Many have gone to the Internet.
> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their government to
> know that they're listening to a station.
It isnt hard to use a vpn to stop the govt knowing that.
> With radio, that's easy to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC
> detector vans, which it seems were more a scare tactic than a
> technological solution). On the Internet, unless you're very careful and
> fairly knowledgeable, you have to assume that your government can know
> every click you make.
Don’t have to be very careful and fairly knowledgeable to use a vpn.
> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't connected to a
> broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or Barb's house.
Completely routine to do that using cellphone data.
> Lots of religion
>> broadcasts still left. I haven't listened in over a year, but in 2014
>> I did hear a travelogue broadcast from Radio Rumania about the
>> Carpathian Mountains.
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317285 is a reply to message #317284] |
Mon, 02 May 2016 17:40  |
|
|
Originally posted by: Simo
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:ng8fg6$rs4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/2/2016 2:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-02, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> His tirades vary. I haven't listened to his subject matter for
>>>> a long time because he does it in preacher-style. He yells about
>>>> the Constitution getting broken, gays, Democrats. No facts just
>>>> spouting, AFAICT. He does seem to leave economics alone but my
>>>> sampling is not 100%.
>>>
>>> Well, that doesn't sound much like hate speech. If someone is going
>>> to be accused of spouting hate I think some specific examples should
>>> be provided.
>>>
>>> For example, last year at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami, Nation
>>> of Islam leader Louis Farrakan stated that violent retaliation is
>>> the only way for American blacks to rise up and overthrow their white
>>> oppressors,
>>
>> God, is he still around? I thought he'd long ago gone off to paradise
>> with
>> the 500 virgins, or whatever.
>>
>
> 500 virgins? Sounds more like hell to me. I guess Genghis Kahn was into
> that sort of thing, but he was just planning on overnight, not eternity.
>
> Paradise would have 3 experienced spirits. Or even only one, because
> keeping even three happy would be quite a feat.
It isnt about keeping them happy, silly.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317286 is a reply to message #317284] |
Mon, 02 May 2016 18:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Simo
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:ng8han$2oi$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/2/2016 2:53 PM, Simo wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ng877u$oh8$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their
>>> government to know that they're listening to a station.
>>
>> It isnt hard to use a vpn to stop the govt knowing that.
>
> Tell that to the users of HideMyAss and EarthVPN.
Don’t need to, anyone who cares about what their govt is
checking they are listening to will already know about that stuff.
> Users need to be concerned not only about whether the VPN keeps logs, but
> about whether the datacenters they have servers in do.
> But beyond the logging issue, some governments are reputed to be able to
> crack SSL.
Not the ones that are trying to keep track of what you are listening to
that used to be on short wave radio that has now moved to the net.
> And OpenVPN has had vulnerabilities in the past, it probably has some now
> that we don't know about ("we" as in "you and I", not "you, I, the NSA,
> and the FSB").
Those aren't the ones that care about keeping track of what you are
listening
to that used to be on short wave radio that has now moved to the net.
> Not to speak of other means of tracking (applications that can be made to
> divulge the native IP number, keysniffing, etc.).
Ditto.
> For some users, just being known to connect to VPNs may be damning enough.
Nope.
> Or the VPN may be blocked at the Great Firewall.
Tell that to those in china who aren't.
> Likewise, people using Tor have been identified, and not always through
> their own opsec failures.
And it is trivially easy to avoid that.
> There are still a few "numbers stations" around, presumably because
> governments want an untraceable way to communicate to their minions that
> the Internet doesn't provide.
Irrelevant to whether it is perfectly possible to listen what
used to be on short wave radio that has now moved to the
net without your govt being aware of what you listen to.
>>> With radio, that's easy to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC
>>> detector vans, which it seems were more a scare tactic than a
>>> technological solution). On the Internet, unless you're very careful
>>> and fairly knowledgeable, you have to assume that your government
>>> can know every click you make.
>>
>> Don’t have to be very careful and fairly knowledgeable to use a vpn.
>>
>>> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't
>>> connected to a broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or
>>> Barb's house.
>>
>> Completely routine to do that using cellphone data.
>
> Routine, but doesn't work everywhere, or for everybody.
Doesn’t need to.
> Not everybody has data on their cellphone plan.
But if they want to listen to the stuff that used to be
on short wave radio that has now moved to the net,
they obviously can have data on the cellphone plan.
> If they do, the same vulnerabilities exist as with a fixed location.
Nope, you are free to use a burner phone.
> Hell, not everybody has a cellphone.
But if they want to listen to the stuff that used to be
on short wave radio that has now moved to the net,
they obviously can get one. Costs peanuts to do that.
> (And for those who are worried about security vis-a-vis their government,
> a cellphone can be viewed as a tracking beacon.)
And it is trivially easy to avoid that too.
> And maybe Oz has cellphone towers covering every square mile of the
> outback, but the USA doesn't.
The satellite service does.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317287 is a reply to message #317284] |
Mon, 02 May 2016 21:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <ng8han$2oi$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
says...
>
> On 5/2/2016 2:53 PM, Simo wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ng877u$oh8$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their
>>> government to know that they're listening to a station.
>>
>> It isnt hard to use a vpn to stop the govt knowing that.
>
> Tell that to the users of HideMyAss and EarthVPN. Users need to be
> concerned not only about whether the VPN keeps logs, but about whether
> the datacenters they have servers in do.
>
> But beyond the logging issue, some governments are reputed to be able
> to crack SSL.
Any government that can't isn't trying. That's why SSL has been long
since deprecated.
> And OpenVPN has had vulnerabilities in the past, it
> probably has some now that we don't know about ("we" as in "you and
> I", not "you, I, the NSA, and the FSB").
>
> Not to speak of other means of tracking (applications that can be made
> to divulge the native IP number, keysniffing, etc.). For some users,
> just being known to connect to VPNs may be damning enough. Or the VPN
> may be blocked at the Great Firewall. Likewise, people using Tor have
> been identified, and not always through their own opsec failures.
>
> There are still a few "numbers stations" around, presumably because
> governments want an untraceable way to communicate to their minions
> that the Internet doesn't provide.
>
>>> With radio, that's easy to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC
>>> detector vans, which it seems were more a scare tactic than a
>>> technological solution). On the Internet, unless you're very careful
>>> and fairly knowledgeable, you have to assume that your government
>>> can know every click you make.
>>
>> Don?t have to be very careful and fairly knowledgeable to use a vpn.
>>
>>> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't
>>> connected to a broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or
>>> Barb's house.
>>
>> Completely routine to do that using cellphone data.
>
> Routine, but doesn't work everywhere, or for everybody. Not everybody
> has data on their cellphone plan. If they do, the same vulnerabilities
> exist as with a fixed location. Hell, not everybody has a cellphone.
> (And for those who are worried about security vis-a-vis their
> government, a cellphone can be viewed as a tracking beacon.) And maybe
> Oz has cellphone towers covering every square mile of the outback, but
> the USA doesn't.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317308 is a reply to message #317284] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 07:50 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland wrote:
> On 5/2/2016 8:24 AM, JimP wrote:
>> On 2 May 2016 13:13:23 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2016-05-01, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 8:20:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some
>>> people
>>>> > who
>>>> >>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in the
>>> noisy
>>>> >>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is wasted.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> AM radio might still be broadcast, but it seems to be almost all
>>>> >> talk now--religious, call-in, news, and sports. Plenty of talk
>>>> >> on FM, too. I don't know how all that talk manages to keep an
>>>> >> audience to attract sponsors, but apparently it does.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think people these days are listening to satellite radio.
>>>> >
>>>> > SW broadccasts are also diminishing rapidly.
>>>> >
>>>> > /BAH
>>>>
>>>> Pity, one could hear all sort of odd stuff there.
>>>
>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> My copy of the World RAdio and TV Handbook mentions a big drop off in
>> SW broadcasts. Many have gone to the Internet.
>
> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their government
> to know that they're listening to a station. With radio, that's easy
> to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC detector vans, which it
> seems were more a scare tactic than a technological solution). On the
> Internet, unless you're very careful and fairly knowledgeable, you
> have to assume that your government can know every click you make.
>
> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't connected
> to a broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or Barb's house.
AT night when she's trying to go to sleep.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317320 is a reply to message #317284] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 14:33 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-05-02, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/2016 2:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
> 500 virgins? Sounds more like hell to me. I guess Genghis Kahn was
> into that sort of thing, but he was just planning on overnight, not
> eternity.
>
> Paradise would have 3 experienced spirits. Or even only one, because
> keeping even three happy would be quite a feat.
>
The twilight zone;
The womanizing, gambling protaginist dies, and arrives at a place
where all his bets win, all the girls fall in with his wishes, and
so on. "I love heaven", to which he was told, "This is not heaven,
its hell"
From memory, which may be wrong
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317326 is a reply to message #317308] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 15:18 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
> Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 8:24 AM, JimP wrote:
>>> On 2 May 2016 13:13:23 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> > On 2016-05-01, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 8:20:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >>>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some
>>>> people
>>>> >> who
>>>> >>>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in
>>>> >>>> the
>>>> noisy
>>>> >>>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is
>>>> >>>> wasted.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> AM radio might still be broadcast, but it seems to be almost all
>>>> >>> talk now--religious, call-in, news, and sports. Plenty of talk
>>>> >>> on FM, too. I don't know how all that talk manages to keep an
>>>> >>> audience to attract sponsors, but apparently it does.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I think people these days are listening to satellite radio.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> SW broadccasts are also diminishing rapidly.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> /BAH
>>>> >
>>>> > Pity, one could hear all sort of odd stuff there.
>>>>
>>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> My copy of the World RAdio and TV Handbook mentions a big drop off in
>>> SW broadcasts. Many have gone to the Internet.
>>
>> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their government
>> to know that they're listening to a station. With radio, that's easy
>> to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC detector vans, which it
>> seems were more a scare tactic than a technological solution). On the
>> Internet, unless you're very careful and fairly knowledgeable, you
>> have to assume that your government can know every click you make.
>>
>> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't connected
>> to a broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or Barb's house.
>
> AT night when she's trying to go to sleep.
The net works fine for that. I do in fact provide that for my next door
neighbour who is in an identical situation to you, wants to listen to
one of the radio stations 24/7/365.25 which never gets broadcast here.
So she listens to it on the net. I've got a wifi extender about half
way down her backyard, under an upturned bucket with a brick
on it, which allows her to do that using my net service for nothing.
She's about the same age you are in a very similar situation
to yours lifestyle wise, including the medical problems.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317330 is a reply to message #317320] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 16:09 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-05-02, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 2:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> 500 virgins? Sounds more like hell to me. I guess Genghis Kahn was
>> into that sort of thing, but he was just planning on overnight, not
>> eternity.
>>
>> Paradise would have 3 experienced spirits. Or even only one, because
>> keeping even three happy would be quite a feat.
>>
>
> The twilight zone;
> The womanizing, gambling protaginist dies, and arrives at a place
> where all his bets win, all the girls fall in with his wishes, and
> so on. "I love heaven", to which he was told, "This is not heaven,
> its hell"
>
> From memory, which may be wrong
>
>
Just caught that one on youtube a few months ago, you got it right.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317336 is a reply to message #317320] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 16:47 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3 May 2016 18:33:39 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
[snip]
> The twilight zone;
> The womanizing, gambling protaginist dies, and arrives at a place
> where all his bets win, all the girls fall in with his wishes, and
> so on. "I love heaven", to which he was told, "This is not heaven,
> its hell"
>
> From memory, which may be wrong
The episode is "A Nice Place to Visit".
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317338 is a reply to message #317308] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 17:33 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
>>
>>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>>
See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
radio left to listen to! ;-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317343 is a reply to message #317338] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 17:54 |
Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 4:33:27 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" wrote in message
> ---[--- heavily snipped ---]---
> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
> radio left to listen to! ;-)
Reminds me of an ole Yogi Berra quote:
"Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, it's always too crowded.
_______________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317357 is a reply to message #317338] |
Tue, 03 May 2016 23:02 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 3 May 2016, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>>>
>>>> > Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> > language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> > business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> > that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >
>
> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>
Look at the CBC, they moved their AM stations to FM, at least in the major
cities, so they then had to rename the chain "Radio One", since AM and FM
no longer described the difference between the two chains. SOme do wonder
why they didn't make those AM stations on the FM band stereo, since they
do play music at times. And I can't figure out why "Radio Two" is getting
ads, when Radio One has been more "commercial".
Meanwhile here in Montreal, we have two English "Radio One" stations.
Having moved to FM, they discovered dead zones, so they talked the CRTC
out of another valuable FM frequency, that just airs the same content as
the main transmitter. If they'd stuck to AM, they'd have the better
coverage with one transmitter (though none of those MP3 players seem to
include AM receivers), and not use up two valuable FM frequencies.
Everything is now taken, and we've lost most of the US stations because
local stations are now on their frequency.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317367 is a reply to message #317320] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 01:33 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 03/05/2016 19:33, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-05-02, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 2:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> 500 virgins? Sounds more like hell to me. I guess Genghis Kahn was
>> into that sort of thing, but he was just planning on overnight, not
>> eternity.
>>
>> Paradise would have 3 experienced spirits. Or even only one, because
>> keeping even three happy would be quite a feat.
>>
>
> The twilight zone;
> The womanizing, gambling protaginist dies, and arrives at a place
> where all his bets win, all the girls fall in with his wishes, and
> so on. "I love heaven", to which he was told, "This is not heaven,
> its hell"
>
> From memory, which may be wrong
>
>
He gets bored with the repetition and talks to his minder. He asks her
how a sinner like him got into heaven. At that point the minder grows
horns and a tail then reveals it is hell. There is no end to the boredom.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317383 is a reply to message #317326] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 09:02 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2016 8:24 AM, JimP wrote:
>>>> On 2 May 2016 13:13:23 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> >> On 2016-05-01, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 8:20:39 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some
>>>> > people
>>>> >>> who
>>>> >>>>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in
>>>> >>>>> the
>>>> > noisy
>>>> >>>>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is
>>>> >>>>> wasted.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> AM radio might still be broadcast, but it seems to be almost all
>>>> >>>> talk now--religious, call-in, news, and sports. Plenty of talk
>>>> >>>> on FM, too. I don't know how all that talk manages to keep an
>>>> >>>> audience to attract sponsors, but apparently it does.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I think people these days are listening to satellite radio.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> SW broadccasts are also diminishing rapidly.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> /BAH
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Pity, one could hear all sort of odd stuff there.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> > language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> > business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> > that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >
>>>> > /BAH
>>>>
>>>> My copy of the World RAdio and TV Handbook mentions a big drop off in
>>>> SW broadcasts. Many have gone to the Internet.
>>>
>>> This is a shame, because some listeners may not want their government
>>> to know that they're listening to a station. With radio, that's easy
>>> to accomplish (aside from the legendary BBC detector vans, which it
>>> seems were more a scare tactic than a technological solution). On the
>>> Internet, unless you're very careful and fairly knowledgeable, you
>>> have to assume that your government can know every click you make.
>>>
>>> And some listeners may just want to listen when they aren't connected
>>> to a broadband connection. Their cabin in the woods, or Barb's house.
>>
>> AT night when she's trying to go to sleep.
>
> The net works fine for that. I do in fact provide that for my next door
> neighbour who is in an identical situation to you, wants to listen to
> one of the radio stations 24/7/365.25 which never gets broadcast here.
>
> So she listens to it on the net. I've got a wifi extender about half
> way down her backyard, under an upturned bucket with a brick
> on it, which allows her to do that using my net service for nothing.
>
> She's about the same age you are in a very similar situation
> to yours lifestyle wise, including the medical problems.
Yea, I know I'm going to have to do that some day. I'm waiting
for wifi to show up.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317390 is a reply to message #317338] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 09:02 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>>>
>>>> > Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> > language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> > business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> > that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >
>
> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>
I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317401 is a reply to message #317367] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 11:11 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-05-04, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2016 19:33, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> The twilight zone;
>> The womanizing, gambling protaginist dies, and arrives at a place
>> where all his bets win, all the girls fall in with his wishes, and
>> so on. "I love heaven", to which he was told, "This is not heaven,
>> its hell"
>>
>> From memory, which may be wrong
>
> He gets bored with the repetition and talks to his minder. He asks her
> how a sinner like him got into heaven. At that point the minder grows
> horns and a tail
Figuratively, perhaps, but not literally. Twilight Zone was subtle.
> then reveals it is hell. There is no end to the boredom.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317402 is a reply to message #317390] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 11:11 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-05-04, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>>> >> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >> that went away in the early aught's.
>>
>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>
> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
That problem isn't limited to AM. I listen to KING-FM in Seattle,
and due to the distance the signal isn't very good. But it's my
only choice for 24/7 classical music on the radio. And even when
the strong, local CBC Radio 2 transmitter is broadcasting classical
music, the once-a-minute glitches in its signal make listening to
it something like Chinese water torture.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317409 is a reply to message #317390] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 12:43 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>
>>
>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>
> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
I normally listen to AM740 (KCBS - 24x7 news) in the morning. When I'm
travelling, I listen to it via internet to keep up with the
hometown news
KCBS has a clear signal out into the san joaquin valley
and I've no reception problems locally.
Most interference issues are local to the receiver (bad
magnetic ballasts, for example).
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317412 is a reply to message #317390] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 13:27 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>
>>
>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>
> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>
Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some sports
stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just kind
of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first "Gulf
War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid of
the caller.
Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which makes
it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other one
wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
gone now.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317432 is a reply to message #317402] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 15:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 4 May 2016 15:11:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2016-05-04, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> >>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>
>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>
>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>
> That problem isn't limited to AM. I listen to KING-FM in Seattle,
> and due to the distance the signal isn't very good. But it's my
> only choice for 24/7 classical music on the radio. And even when
> the strong, local CBC Radio 2 transmitter is broadcasting classical
> music, the once-a-minute glitches in its signal make listening to
> it something like Chinese water torture.
US PBS used to have classical music all night. Then they dropped that
for BBC talk radio all night.
--
JimP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317433 is a reply to message #317409] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 15:59 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:43:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>
>>>
>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>
>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>
> I normally listen to AM740 (KCBS - 24x7 news) in the morning. When I'm
> travelling, I listen to it via internet to keep up with the
> hometown news
>
> KCBS has a clear signal out into the san joaquin valley
> and I've no reception problems locally.
>
> Most interference issues are local to the receiver (bad
> magnetic ballasts, for example).
Or lightning storms. FM isn't affected by thunderstorms.
--
JimP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317435 is a reply to message #317357] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 16:13 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2016, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>
>>
>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>
> Look at the CBC, they moved their AM stations to FM, at least in the major
> cities, so they then had to rename the chain "Radio One", since AM and FM
> no longer described the difference between the two chains. SOme do wonder
> why they didn't make those AM stations on the FM band stereo, since they
> do play music at times. And I can't figure out why "Radio Two" is getting
> ads, when Radio One has been more "commercial".
>
> Meanwhile here in Montreal, we have two English "Radio One" stations.
> Having moved to FM, they discovered dead zones, so they talked the CRTC
> out of another valuable FM frequency, that just airs the same content as
> the main transmitter. If they'd stuck to AM, they'd have the better
> coverage with one transmitter (though none of those MP3 players seem to
> include AM receivers), and not use up two valuable FM frequencies.
> Everything is now taken, and we've lost most of the US stations because
> local stations are now on their frequency.
>
I remember how much better FM sounded than AM when it first got started.
I's a lot like digital, in that you usually get all or nothing, while AM
you could tweak the tuning to get something, although not necessarily a
clear signal.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317440 is a reply to message #317412] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 16:28 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>
>>>
>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>
>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>
> Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
> only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some sports
> stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just kind
> of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
> time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
> clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first "Gulf
> War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
> afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
> more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
> calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid of
> the caller.
>
> Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
> Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
> Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which makes
> it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
> reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
> hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
>
> Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other one
> wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
> wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
> gone now.
>
> Michael
>
>
Those "clear channel" stations were great. In addition to WBZ the was WLS
from Chicago and our local (forget the call sign but it was one of the
first). In college a frat brother used to listen to Grand Ole Opry on
WWVA, And of course the Wolfman used to broadcast from Del Rio Tx. BTW,
now a lot of the old-time DJs are on satellite radio, I think Cousin
Brucie.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317454 is a reply to message #317433] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 23:17 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2016, JimP wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:43:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> > [snip...]
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>>
>>>>
>>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>>
>>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>
>> I normally listen to AM740 (KCBS - 24x7 news) in the morning. When I'm
>> travelling, I listen to it via internet to keep up with the
>> hometown news
>>
>> KCBS has a clear signal out into the san joaquin valley
>> and I've no reception problems locally.
>>
>> Most interference issues are local to the receiver (bad
>> magnetic ballasts, for example).
>
> Or lightning storms. FM isn't affected by thunderstorms.
>
Which is why Howard Armstrong put the effort into making FM practical, he
wanted to get around such interference.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317455 is a reply to message #317432] |
Wed, 04 May 2016 23:20 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2016, JimP wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 15:11:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-04, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> > [snip...]
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>>
>>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>
>>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>
>> That problem isn't limited to AM. I listen to KING-FM in Seattle,
>> and due to the distance the signal isn't very good. But it's my
>> only choice for 24/7 classical music on the radio. And even when
>> the strong, local CBC Radio 2 transmitter is broadcasting classical
>> music, the once-a-minute glitches in its signal make listening to
>> it something like Chinese water torture.
>
> US PBS used to have classical music all night. Then they dropped that
> for BBC talk radio all night.
>
For a while, we could get two NPR stations here, though one was weaker.
If I recall properly, the weaker one would play jazz overnight. The
stronger one would have three or four hours of jazz each weeknight, but
then they dropped that a few years ago, so it's just a few hours on Friday
night. The stronger one used to play classical overnight, I think, I
certainly remember something other than BBC. But they shifted the
classical to a second network and it's BBC overnight now.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317472 is a reply to message #317412] |
Thu, 05 May 2016 08:25 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>
>>>
>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>
>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>
> Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
> only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some sports
> stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just kind
> of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
> time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
> clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first "Gulf
> War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
> afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
> more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
> calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid of
> the caller.
Those stations are killing themselves.
>
> Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
> Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
> Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which makes
> it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
> reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
> hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
WBZ still has their call-in shows at night (except for weekends). When
they got bought out about 10 years ago, the non-local management fired
the call in show hosts and broadcast a syndicated show. New Englanders
got pissed off; as a result the fired people came back. The call in
show format success was a fluke caused by a big snowstorm. Dave Maynard
and a couple others were the only ones at the station. They finally
aired people calling in with their reports of the storm. The WBZ radio
people learned how to make the station (what is now called) family
friendly and continued the call in format. New Englanders still
like it because the callers give their local gossip. It's more
informative than any news broadcast.
>
> Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other one
> wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
> wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
> gone now.
The Holland station still has a morning show which is based on people
calling in. However, the guy who was hosting the show died last month
so I don't know if they'll be able to find someone who can replace
him. They do have quite few speciality shows hosted by locals: car talk,
lawyers, hospitals, legislature reps, social security.
Unfortuantely, the station does syndication for the other 18hours.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317476 is a reply to message #317433] |
Thu, 05 May 2016 09:37 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:43:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> > [snip...]
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>>
>>>>
>>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>>
>>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>
>> I normally listen to AM740 (KCBS - 24x7 news) in the morning. When I'm
>> travelling, I listen to it via internet to keep up with the
>> hometown news
>>
>> KCBS has a clear signal out into the san joaquin valley
>> and I've no reception problems locally.
>>
>> Most interference issues are local to the receiver (bad
>> magnetic ballasts, for example).
>
> Or lightning storms. FM isn't affected by thunderstorms.
Which are extremely rare in this part of the country.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317480 is a reply to message #317472] |
Thu, 05 May 2016 12:42 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 5 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> > [snip...]
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>>
>>>>
>>>> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>>> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>>
>>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>>
>> Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
>> only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some sports
>> stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just kind
>> of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
>> time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
>> clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first "Gulf
>> War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
>> afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
>> more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
>> calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid of
>> the caller.
>
> Those stations are killing themselves.
>>
>> Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
>> Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
>> Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which makes
>> it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
>> reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
>> hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
>
> WBZ still has their call-in shows at night (except for weekends). When
> they got bought out about 10 years ago, the non-local management fired
> the call in show hosts and broadcast a syndicated show. New Englanders
> got pissed off; as a result the fired people came back. The call in
> show format success was a fluke caused by a big snowstorm. Dave Maynard
> and a couple others were the only ones at the station. They finally
> aired people calling in with their reports of the storm. The WBZ radio
> people learned how to make the station (what is now called) family
> friendly and continued the call in format. New Englanders still
> like it because the callers give their local gossip. It's more
> informative than any news broadcast.
>
I started listening in the early nineties, when Norm Nathan would do the
weekend show. The Dumb Birthday Game and all that, it would come on late
enough that the signals were fading, so I'd usually hear the questions,
and then the answers were in the fade. And he'd do holidays, when most
stations go to canned programming, so it actually added a coziness to it.
>>
>> Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other one
>> wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
>> wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
>> gone now.
>
> The Holland station still has a morning show which is based on people
> calling in. However, the guy who was hosting the show died last month
> so I don't know if they'll be able to find someone who can replace
> him. They do have quite few speciality shows hosted by locals: car talk,
> lawyers, hospitals, legislature reps, social security.
>
We used to have specialized talk shows here, but as the main talk station
changed ownership a few times, the demand was for more central
programming. So the gardening show went, as did some others. They'd
have some consumer oriented shows, have a plumber or some other
specialist on so people could call in with their questions. I didn't
have a lot of interest in the specific topics, but it was a break from the
regular discussion of whatever was in the news, as if that was all that
counted. The every weeknight show about sex and romance is still on, that
must be 20 years old, at least.
We've had a number of purges, when a lot of the on air staff was
terminated, and then the new shows don't do as well as anticipated.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317493 is a reply to message #317284] |
Thu, 05 May 2016 16:13 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-05-05, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 11:42 AM, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-05-04, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:PM000531EEA73C6958@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> >>> [snip...]
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I don't have quotes; I simply gave you an example of radio
>>>> >>> show which is unendurable.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Speaking of unenurable: Those "reality" TV shows are unendurable!!!
>>>> >
>>>> > I never understood them; they confused me as much as People
>>>> > magazine did.
>>>>
>>>> What bothers me about them is that they're one more example of our
>>>> language being twisted into meaninglessness. If that's "reality",
>>>> give me fantasy any day - you know, the ones where people aren't
>>>> constantly trying to stab each other in the back.
>>>>
>>> Well, the stabbing parts seem scripted to me. I agree with you
>>> about the misuse of the word. Another word which seems to be
>>> misused is factoid. And I hate the PR people who have been
>>> trained to begin the answer to any question with the word
>>> absolutely.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> We need a new paradigm. One that empowers the associates while
> enhancing the core competency.
Yes, we must leverage our synergies.
"...taping 20 cents to my transmission so I can shift my pair o' dimes..."
-- Spider Robinson
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317498 is a reply to message #317284] |
Thu, 05 May 2016 17:31 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:nggc7n$q81$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/5/2016 2:22 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> > > On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> > > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> > >> It is worrisome.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the
>>>> > house > we
>>>> > > have three independent routes to the internet, this is not unusual.
>>>> > >
>>>> > You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in doing
>>>> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have an
>>>> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive,
>>>> wireless
>>>> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> participants.
>>
>>> US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>
>> More fool you. It isn't.
>>
>> Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>> secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>
> How many cellphones have completely secure end to end communication?
Plenty can have that added.
> Can I get one at the T-Mobile store?
Yep.
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317516 is a reply to message #317480] |
Fri, 06 May 2016 09:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> >> [snip...]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much AM
>>>> > radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>> >
>>>> I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>>>
>>> Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
>>> only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some sports
>>> stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just kind
>>> of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
>>> time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
>>> clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first "Gulf
>>> War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
>>> afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
>>> more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
>>> calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid of
>>> the caller.
>>
>> Those stations are killing themselves.
>>>
>>> Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
>>> Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
>>> Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which makes
>>> it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
>>> reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
>>> hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
>>
>> WBZ still has their call-in shows at night (except for weekends). When
>> they got bought out about 10 years ago, the non-local management fired
>> the call in show hosts and broadcast a syndicated show. New Englanders
>> got pissed off; as a result the fired people came back. The call in
>> show format success was a fluke caused by a big snowstorm. Dave Maynard
>> and a couple others were the only ones at the station. They finally
>> aired people calling in with their reports of the storm. The WBZ radio
>> people learned how to make the station (what is now called) family
>> friendly and continued the call in format. New Englanders still
>> like it because the callers give their local gossip. It's more
>> informative than any news broadcast.
>>
> I started listening in the early nineties, when Norm Nathan would do the
> weekend show. The Dumb Birthday Game and all that, it would come on late
> enough that the signals were fading, so I'd usually hear the questions,
> and then the answers were in the fade. And he'd do holidays, when most
> stations go to canned programming, so it actually added a coziness to it.
It was similar to having a family get together. He'd be playing his
cicada tapes now. The format was very useful when there were storms
because people would call in and report power outages and other problems.
It kept me from getting panicy and thinking I was the only one having
problems. That worked everyone else, too. This is important
communications in an area when everything else is broken or
saturated. It was also helpful to services like the power and
telephone companies by keeping the phone line traffic down.
During winter after a big storm, people would call in and report
when they saw a plow so everyone else would know which roads were
clear and be able to estimate when theirs would get cleared.
>
>
>>>
>>> Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other one
>>> wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
>>> wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
>>> gone now.
>>
>> The Holland station still has a morning show which is based on people
>> calling in. However, the guy who was hosting the show died last month
>> so I don't know if they'll be able to find someone who can replace
>> him. They do have quite few speciality shows hosted by locals: car talk,
>> lawyers, hospitals, legislature reps, social security.
>>
> We used to have specialized talk shows here, but as the main talk station
> changed ownership a few times, the demand was for more central
> programming.
I'll bet it wasn't the demand of the listeners but an attempt to reduce
the cost of running the station.
> So the gardening show went, as did some others. They'd
> have some consumer oriented shows, have a plumber or some other
> specialist on so people could call in with their questions. I didn't
> have a lot of interest in the specific topics, but it was a break from the
> regular discussion of whatever was in the news, as if that was all that
> counted.
The local station here still has those, including fishing, hunting,
and trapping shows.
> The every weeknight show about sex and romance is still on, that
> must be 20 years old, at least.
Those are definitely not on my local station; this is a Christian
area and sex is not allowed.
>
> We've had a number of purges, when a lot of the on air staff was
> terminated, and then the new shows don't do as well as anticipated.
That's because listeners get attached to the hosts. If the host
keeps getting changed, the listeners don't have an investment in
listening and keeping up with local "gossip".
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317530 is a reply to message #317516] |
Fri, 06 May 2016 12:40 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0005322C67ADF268@aca40d35.ipt.aol.com...
> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Black wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:PM000531EEB968E8D3@aca2d696.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>>> >>> [snip...]
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Yea. I liked hearing farm reports from Viet Nam, Chinese
>>>> >>>>>> language lessons from China, and Cuba's take on USian
>>>> >>>>>> business. BBC also had shows which I enjoyed but all of
>>>> >>>>>> that went away in the early aught's.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> See, "no one listens to AM radio anymore" because there is *not* much
>>>> >> AM
>>>> >> radio left to listen to! ;-)
>>>> >>
>>>> > I would listen to more AM if the interference wasn't so loud.
>>>> >
>>>> Really? I got tired of listening to the local AM talk station, really
>>>> only the last English remaining AM stations, though they have some
>>>> sports
>>>> stations now). That was 2 or 3 years ago, no real decision, I just
>>>> kind
>>>> of moved the radio and stopped. I got tired of the guests getting less
>>>> time, and it all increasingly seemed like the station considered it
>>>> clutter in between the ads and the two newscasts (during the first
>>>> "Gulf
>>>> War" they added a newscast at the 30 minute mark, and just kept that
>>>> afterwards). People would call in, get one sentence, then the guest or
>>>> more likely the host would repeat something and then "thank you for
>>>> calling" and there'd be no more callers, they were so quick to get rid
>>>> of
>>>> the caller.
>>>
>>> Those stations are killing themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Overnight, AM used to be interesting, but too much of it is "Coast to
>>>> Coast" or some other syndicated show. I used to listen to WBZ 1030 in
>>>> Boston, but we got a French language country station at 1040 which
>>>> makes
>>>> it hard to listen to WBZ. But WBZ at least realized they had a long
>>>> reach, so the overnight show was less local than some stations. But
>>>> hardly anyone has local programming overnight, even here it's all gone.
>>>
>>> WBZ still has their call-in shows at night (except for weekends). When
>>> they got bought out about 10 years ago, the non-local management fired
>>> the call in show hosts and broadcast a syndicated show. New Englanders
>>> got pissed off; as a result the fired people came back. The call in
>>> show format success was a fluke caused by a big snowstorm. Dave Maynard
>>> and a couple others were the only ones at the station. They finally
>>> aired people calling in with their reports of the storm. The WBZ radio
>>> people learned how to make the station (what is now called) family
>>> friendly and continued the call in format. New Englanders still
>>> like it because the callers give their local gossip. It's more
>>> informative than any news broadcast.
>>>
>> I started listening in the early nineties, when Norm Nathan would do the
>> weekend show. The Dumb Birthday Game and all that, it would come on late
>> enough that the signals were fading, so I'd usually hear the questions,
>> and then the answers were in the fade. And he'd do holidays, when most
>> stations go to canned programming, so it actually added a coziness to it.
>
> It was similar to having a family get together. He'd be playing his
> cicada tapes now. The format was very useful when there were storms
> because people would call in and report power outages and other problems.
> It kept me from getting panicy and thinking I was the only one having
> problems. That worked everyone else, too.
Corse it didn’t for those who didn’t bother to listen.
> This is important communications in an area
> when everything else is broken or saturated.
That is never the case anymore even with mega disasters.
> It was also helpful to services like the power and telephone
> companies by keeping the phone line traffic down. During
> winter after a big storm, people would call in and report when
> they saw a plow so everyone else would know which roads were
> clear and be able to estimate when theirs would get cleared.
Makes more sense for those doing the plowing
to say where they are currently plowing.
>>>> Even about ten years ago, we had two local AM talk stations, the other
>>>> one
>>>> wasn't perfect, but at least it existed, something to tune to if I
>>>> wasn't interested in what the first station was discussing. But that's
>>>> gone now.
>>>
>>> The Holland station still has a morning show which is based on people
>>> calling in. However, the guy who was hosting the show died last month
>>> so I don't know if they'll be able to find someone who can replace
>>> him. They do have quite few speciality shows hosted by locals: car
>>> talk,
>>> lawyers, hospitals, legislature reps, social security.
>>>
>> We used to have specialized talk shows here, but as the main talk station
>> changed ownership a few times, the demand was for more central
>> programming.
>
> I'll bet it wasn't the demand of the listeners but an attempt to reduce
> the cost of running the station.
>
>> So the gardening show went, as did some others. They'd
>> have some consumer oriented shows, have a plumber or some other
>> specialist on so people could call in with their questions. I didn't
>> have a lot of interest in the specific topics, but it was a break from
>> the
>> regular discussion of whatever was in the news, as if that was all that
>> counted.
>
> The local station here still has those, including fishing, hunting,
> and trapping shows.
>
>> The every weeknight show about sex and romance is still on, that
>> must be 20 years old, at least.
>
> Those are definitely not on my local station; this is a Christian
> area and sex is not allowed.
>
>>
>> We've had a number of purges, when a lot of the on air staff was
>> terminated, and then the new shows don't do as well as anticipated.
>
> That's because listeners get attached to the hosts. If the host
> keeps getting changed, the listeners don't have an investment in
> listening and keeping up with local "gossip".
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317663 is a reply to message #317284] |
Sat, 07 May 2016 20:29 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <nglkad$nu0$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 8:14 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> In article <dp1kscFeu7sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> >>>>> It is worrisome.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the house
>>>> >>>> we
>>>> >>>> have three independent routes to the internet, this is not unusual.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in doing
>>>> >> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have an
>>>> >> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive, wireless
>>>> >> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> >> participants.
>>>>
>>>> > US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> More fool you. It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>>>> secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>>>
>>> They could devise firewalls that blocked all encrypted communication
>>> that showed the encryption in the frames. You only need around 50 deep
>>> inspection rules to do this for the published, shrink-wrapped protocols.
>>>
>>> The answer is steganography. Everyone knows this, and the "open 38" have
>>> decided that that filtering route is a dead end, and probably
>> unconsitutional
>>> in all of them.
>>>
>>> The remaining ~155 nations are still undecided. Around 50 of them are
>>> actively trying.
>>>
>>> I will keep my SW radio. Just in case.
>>
>> How much time and money is required to reinstate the infrastructure
>> of transmission?
>
> Probably not more than setting up a large clear-channel AM station.
> Just the transmitters and antennas are different. Part would depend on
> where (and how many places) you were going to broadcast to, as
> different destinations require different antenna arrays. Low millions
> for the basic kit, I'd guess. More for a VOA/BBC/Radio Moscow level of
> operation.
If you have an emergency where you just need a cheap, wide covering
radio station I would go for some low-ish SW station; like 11M, and
beef up the transmitter to a few tens of kilowatts. Which is plainly
illegal by normal transmitter regulations. The normal limit is a few
hundred watts.
This should cost in the low hundreds of thousands for a permanent setup,
some tens of thousands for a temporary one built for a few weeks of
operation.
> If they're streaming on the Internet now, they've already got the
> production facilities, it's just transmitters and antennas and paying
> the electric bill.
The limit for AM was 50kW for a long time, but then the capitalists
got what they wanted. 2 MW has been in use for several stations, ISTR
some Canadian one still runs at that effect. This has an electricity
cost alone of ~3MW x 0.07 $/kWh x 24 hours per day, or around $5000 per
day just in electricity. $1.8M per year.
Assuming 2/3 effiency in radiated vs input energy. Which is VERY good.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317673 is a reply to message #317663] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 09:08 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <nglkad$nu0$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 8:14 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> In article <dp1kscFeu7sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> >>>>>> It is worrisome.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the house
>>>> >>>>> we
>>>> >>>>> have three independent routes to the internet, this is not unusual.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in doing
>>>> >>> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have an
>>>> >>> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive,
wireless
>>>> >>> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> >>> participants.
>>>> >
>>>> >> US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>>> >
>>>> > More fool you. It isn't.
>>>> >
>>>> > Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>>>> > secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>>>>
>>>> They could devise firewalls that blocked all encrypted communication
>>>> that showed the encryption in the frames. You only need around 50 deep
>>>> inspection rules to do this for the published, shrink-wrapped protocols.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is steganography. Everyone knows this, and the "open 38" have
>>>> decided that that filtering route is a dead end, and probably
>>> unconsitutional
>>>> in all of them.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining ~155 nations are still undecided. Around 50 of them are
>>>> actively trying.
>>>>
>>>> I will keep my SW radio. Just in case.
>>>
>>> How much time and money is required to reinstate the infrastructure
>>> of transmission?
>>
>> Probably not more than setting up a large clear-channel AM station.
>> Just the transmitters and antennas are different. Part would depend on
>> where (and how many places) you were going to broadcast to, as
>> different destinations require different antenna arrays. Low millions
>> for the basic kit, I'd guess. More for a VOA/BBC/Radio Moscow level of
>> operation.
>
>
> If you have an emergency where you just need a cheap, wide covering
> radio station I would go for some low-ish SW station; like 11M, and
> beef up the transmitter to a few tens of kilowatts. Which is plainly
> illegal by normal transmitter regulations. The normal limit is a few
> hundred watts.
>
> This should cost in the low hundreds of thousands for a permanent setup,
> some tens of thousands for a temporary one built for a few weeks of
> operation.
If it's an emergency, would there be enough parts to build one (and
that assumes that someone nearby knows how to build it and make it work).
>
>> If they're streaming on the Internet now, they've already got the
>> production facilities, it's just transmitters and antennas and paying
>> the electric bill.
>
> The limit for AM was 50kW for a long time, but then the capitalists
> got what they wanted. 2 MW has been in use for several stations, ISTR
> some Canadian one still runs at that effect. This has an electricity
> cost alone of ~3MW x 0.07 $/kWh x 24 hours per day, or around $5000 per
> day just in electricity. $1.8M per year.
>
> Assuming 2/3 effiency in radiated vs input energy. Which is VERY good.
So building one also includes having some kind of power source which
may not be available if the situation is an emergency.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317686 is a reply to message #317673] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 10:14 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM00053254338F0E4C@aca41104.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <nglkad$nu0$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2016 8:14 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> > In article <dp1kscFeu7sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> >>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> >>>>>>> It is worrisome.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the house
>>>> >>>>>> we
>>>> >>>>>> have three independent routes to the internet, this is not unusual.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>> You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in doing
>>>> >>>> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have an
>>>> >>>> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive,
> wireless
>>>> >>>> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> >>>> participants.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> More fool you. It isn't.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>>>> >> secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>>>> >
>>>> > They could devise firewalls that blocked all encrypted communication
>>>> > that showed the encryption in the frames. You only need around 50 deep
>>>> > inspection rules to do this for the published, shrink-wrapped protocols.
>>>> >
>>>> > The answer is steganography. Everyone knows this, and the "open 38" have
>>>> > decided that that filtering route is a dead end, and probably
>>>> unconsitutional
>>>> > in all of them.
>>>> >
>>>> > The remaining ~155 nations are still undecided. Around 50 of them are
>>>> > actively trying.
>>>> >
>>>> > I will keep my SW radio. Just in case.
>>>>
>>>> How much time and money is required to reinstate the infrastructure
>>>> of transmission?
>>>
>>> Probably not more than setting up a large clear-channel AM station.
>>> Just the transmitters and antennas are different. Part would depend on
>>> where (and how many places) you were going to broadcast to, as
>>> different destinations require different antenna arrays. Low millions
>>> for the basic kit, I'd guess. More for a VOA/BBC/Radio Moscow level of
>>> operation.
>>
>>
>> If you have an emergency where you just need a cheap, wide covering
>> radio station I would go for some low-ish SW station; like 11M, and
>> beef up the transmitter to a few tens of kilowatts. Which is plainly
>> illegal by normal transmitter regulations. The normal limit is a few
>> hundred watts.
>>
>> This should cost in the low hundreds of thousands for a permanent setup,
>> some tens of thousands for a temporary one built for a few weeks of
>> operation.
>
> If it's an emergency, would there be enough parts to build one (and
> that assumes that someone nearby knows how to build it and make it work).
You can scavenge all kinds of electronics. The "special" part is the
high current output transistors/thyristors/even pentodes.
But then SW is only a few tens of megaherts, so you could probably
use any sort-of-recent high power thyristors.
>>> If they're streaming on the Internet now, they've already got the
>>> production facilities, it's just transmitters and antennas and paying
>>> the electric bill.
>>
>> The limit for AM was 50kW for a long time, but then the capitalists
>> got what they wanted. 2 MW has been in use for several stations, ISTR
>> some Canadian one still runs at that effect. This has an electricity
>> cost alone of ~3MW x 0.07 $/kWh x 24 hours per day, or around $5000 per
>> day just in electricity. $1.8M per year.
>>
>> Assuming 2/3 effiency in radiated vs input energy. Which is VERY good.
>
> So building one also includes having some kind of power source which
> may not be available if the situation is an emergency.
You don't have to build radio LUX. 50 watts is the normal output
for a hobbyist rookie license. You probably want to increase that by
5-10fold to have a SW radio covering a 4-5 state area and could be
received with s simple whip or small dipole.
500 watts of output through a simple transmitter would require a power
source of a few kilowatts. Say 3kw, and you have enough for lights,
a mixing table, a few cds and tape reels. (still in use on broadcast,
for the long nighters). Or some pcs with digital production tools.
Put a lot of effort into the antenna; but the materials for that
could be wire and string plus some primitive isolators.
A home 6kw diesel generator or a largish solar panel with a Tesla
or two Leafs as batteries could easily supply that for a long
period.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317687 is a reply to message #317663] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 10:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <usd20d-uq7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
first@last.name.invalid says...
>
> In article <nglkad$nu0$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 8:14 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> In article <dp1kscFeu7sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> >>>>>> It is worrisome.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the house
>>>> >>>>> we
>>>> >>>>> have three independent routes to the internet, this is not unusual.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in doing
>>>> >>> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have an
>>>> >>> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive, wireless
>>>> >>> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> >>> participants.
>>>> >
>>>> >> US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>>> >
>>>> > More fool you. It isn't.
>>>> >
>>>> > Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>>>> > secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>>>>
>>>> They could devise firewalls that blocked all encrypted communication
>>>> that showed the encryption in the frames. You only need around 50 deep
>>>> inspection rules to do this for the published, shrink-wrapped protocols.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is steganography. Everyone knows this, and the "open 38" have
>>>> decided that that filtering route is a dead end, and probably
>>> unconsitutional
>>>> in all of them.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining ~155 nations are still undecided. Around 50 of them are
>>>> actively trying.
>>>>
>>>> I will keep my SW radio. Just in case.
>>>
>>> How much time and money is required to reinstate the infrastructure
>>> of transmission?
>>
>> Probably not more than setting up a large clear-channel AM station.
>> Just the transmitters and antennas are different. Part would depend on
>> where (and how many places) you were going to broadcast to, as
>> different destinations require different antenna arrays. Low millions
>> for the basic kit, I'd guess. More for a VOA/BBC/Radio Moscow level of
>> operation.
>
>
> If you have an emergency where you just need a cheap, wide covering
> radio station I would go for some low-ish SW station; like 11M, and
> beef up the transmitter to a few tens of kilowatts. Which is plainly
> illegal by normal transmitter regulations. The normal limit is a few
> hundred watts.
>
> This should cost in the low hundreds of thousands for a permanent setup,
> some tens of thousands for a temporary one built for a few weeks of
> operation.
>
>> If they're streaming on the Internet now, they've already got the
>> production facilities, it's just transmitters and antennas and paying
>> the electric bill.
>
> The limit for AM was 50kW for a long time, but then the capitalists
> got what they wanted. 2 MW has been in use for several stations, ISTR
> some Canadian one still runs at that effect. This has an electricity
> cost alone of ~3MW x 0.07 $/kWh x 24 hours per day, or around $5000 per
> day just in electricity. $1.8M per year.
Please provide the call sign for an AM radio with a 2 million watt
transmitter. Current North American regulations max out at about
500,000 in Mexico and 50,000 in the US and Canada. And that's ERP,
which is often more than the transmitter output as it is based on
comparing the output from a directional antenna to that of a half-wave
dipole.
> Assuming 2/3 effiency in radiated vs input energy. Which is VERY good.
>
> -- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317689 is a reply to message #317686] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 11:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
> You can scavenge all kinds of electronics. The "special" part is the
> high current output transistors/thyristors/even pentodes.
>
> But then SW is only a few tens of megaherts, so you could probably
> use any sort-of-recent high power thyristors.
>
A few years ago there was an article in the ham press about a 160m
transmitter that used some MOSFETs designed for switching power
supplies. (For those who don't know -- a 100W dissipation power
switching MOFSET cost 77 cents, a 100W dissipation RF Power MOSFET
cost 12 dollars.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317691 is a reply to message #317687] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 11:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> Please provide the call sign for an AM radio with a 2 million watt
> transmitter.
Radio Budapest ran 2MW on 540 kHz.
Radio Luxembourg was 1.2 MW on 1440 kHz when it shut down.
Radio Monte Carlo had 1 MW on 1467 at Roumoules.
> 500,000 in Mexico and 50,000 in the US and Canada. And that's ERP,
> which is often more than the transmitter output as it is based on
> comparing the output from a directional antenna to that of a half-wave
> dipole.
ERP is in every jurisdiction with which I am familiar is relative to an
(imaginary) isotropic radiator, not a dipole. (Dipole is +2.15 dB EIRP)
Antenna gain is positive at VHF (FM), but unity or negative gain at MW
and SW. Certainly negative gain on LW.
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317696 is a reply to message #317691] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 12:38 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <87k2j4tv3m.fsf@senguio.mx>,
Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> Please provide the call sign for an AM radio with a 2 million watt
>> transmitter.
>
> Radio Budapest ran 2MW on 540 kHz.
>
> Radio Luxembourg was 1.2 MW on 1440 kHz when it shut down.
And stronger before that. They tuned it down towards the end.
> Radio Monte Carlo had 1 MW on 1467 at Roumoules.
>
>
>> 500,000 in Mexico and 50,000 in the US and Canada. And that's ERP,
>> which is often more than the transmitter output as it is based on
>> comparing the output from a directional antenna to that of a half-wave
>> dipole.
>
> ERP is in every jurisdiction with which I am familiar is relative to an
> (imaginary) isotropic radiator, not a dipole. (Dipole is +2.15 dB EIRP)
>
> Antenna gain is positive at VHF (FM), but unity or negative gain at MW
> and SW. Certainly negative gain on LW.
You would have to go back 25 years to find the really strong ones.
Even the Kiev below-the-horizon radar was in the megawatt range,
but this was pulsed.
We could hear it go "chakka-chakka-chak" on all frequencies from LW to
the 11m band when it ran full tilt in the late 1980s.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: AM radio Qbasic [message #317700 is a reply to message #317663] |
Sun, 08 May 2016 13:36 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
news:usd20d-uq7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <nglkad$nu0$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 8:14 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> In article <dp1kscFeu7sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:PM0005321708BD3403@aca40637.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>> On 4 May 2016 13:02:19 GMT
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 3 May 2016 11:50:51 GMT
>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Note that this is a single-point failure in communications.
>>>> >>>>>> It is worrisome.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not really between the main feed and the cellphones in the
>>>> >>>>> house
>>>> >>>>> we
>>>> >>>>> have three independent routes to the internet, this is not
>>>> >>>>> unusual.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> You are assuming governments will not try to control network data.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I'm hoping that governments I live under will not succeed in
>>>> >>> doing
>>>> >>> so. If end-to-end encryption is taken away it is past time to have
>>>> >>> an
>>>> >>> alternative. Fortunately there is the hardware for a pervasive,
>>>> >>> wireless
>>>> >>> mesh network already in place - all it needs is software and
>>>> >>> participants.
>>>> >
>>>> >> US Congress keeps trying. I think it's inevitable.
>>>> >
>>>> > More fool you. It isn't.
>>>> >
>>>> > Already the US Congress can't do a damned thing about completely
>>>> > secure end to end communication between cellphones alone.
>>>>
>>>> They could devise firewalls that blocked all encrypted communication
>>>> that showed the encryption in the frames. You only need around 50 deep
>>>> inspection rules to do this for the published, shrink-wrapped
>>>> protocols.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is steganography. Everyone knows this, and the "open 38"
>>>> have
>>>> decided that that filtering route is a dead end, and probably
>>> unconsitutional
>>>> in all of them.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining ~155 nations are still undecided. Around 50 of them are
>>>> actively trying.
>>>>
>>>> I will keep my SW radio. Just in case.
>>>
>>> How much time and money is required to reinstate the infrastructure
>>> of transmission?
>>
>> Probably not more than setting up a large clear-channel AM station.
>> Just the transmitters and antennas are different. Part would depend on
>> where (and how many places) you were going to broadcast to, as
>> different destinations require different antenna arrays. Low millions
>> for the basic kit, I'd guess. More for a VOA/BBC/Radio Moscow level of
>> operation.
>
>
> If you have an emergency where you just need a cheap, wide covering
> radio station I would go for some low-ish SW station; like 11M, and
> beef up the transmitter to a few tens of kilowatts.
Trouble with that approach is that very few can receive that.
Makes a lot more sense to use sat phones instead.
> Which is plainly illegal by normal transmitter regulations.
> The normal limit is a few hundred watts.
> This should cost in the low hundreds of thousands
> for a permanent setup, some tens of thousands for
> a temporary one built for a few weeks of operation.
Using sat phones doesn’t cost anything like that.
>> If they're streaming on the Internet now, they've already got the
>> production facilities, it's just transmitters and antennas and paying
>> the electric bill.
> The limit for AM was 50kW for a long time, but then the capitalists
> got what they wanted. 2 MW has been in use for several stations,
> ISTR some Canadian one still runs at that effect. This has an
> electricity cost alone of ~3MW x 0.07 $/kWh x 24 hours per
> day, or around $5000 per day just in electricity. $1.8M per year.
> Assuming 2/3 effiency in radiated vs input energy. Which is VERY good.
And sat phones cost nothing like that running cost wise.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
