Show Posts
511
General Radio Discussion / Re: Is Shortwave Radio Dead? Read this excellent 'pro' article
« on: July 31, 2014, 1611 UTC »
I hate to say it, but I disagree with the guy.
Not with his arguments, of course. They're valid.
It doesn't matter that shortwave and AM radios are cheaper, and a more efficient way of listening to a broadcast than using a cell phone or tablet or laptop computer. It doesn't matter that much of the world doesn't have broadband or high quality cell service -- that's immaterial.
The people running the government, and the media, in the U.S. in particular (and probably much of the rest of the Western World) think everybody is rich enough to afford a great smart phone plan, and they think that everybody in the world has awesome broadband available to listen to internet broadcasts. I mean, they have it, their own families have it, so doesn't everybody?
And this line of out-of-touch thinking drifts over to their view of how people live in Third World countries. They see a photo on the internet of Jane Q Third World person with a smart phone in hand, and they automatically think that everyone in ________ (fill in the name of whatever Third World country you wish) has internet service just as readily available, and as affordable, as it is in many Western countries.
It's not just the U.S. that has this issue.
The powers that be in the Australian government somehow think that people on isolated Pacific Islands are going to get Radio Australia on their smart phone. Never mind that there are issues with power in some of those countries. Never mind that R. Oz blasts in so well that even the cheapest, two chip, single conversion, 700 Mw output transistor SW radio will pick it up -- just using a few AA's. And it will do it with a speaker that's loud enough that two people can listen for longer than an hour or so.
It's a case of politicians and policy makers thinking everybody lives just like them and their neighbors.
And also apparently a case of those running the SW services not making a strong enough case to keep the funding alive.
Not with his arguments, of course. They're valid.
It doesn't matter that shortwave and AM radios are cheaper, and a more efficient way of listening to a broadcast than using a cell phone or tablet or laptop computer. It doesn't matter that much of the world doesn't have broadband or high quality cell service -- that's immaterial.
The people running the government, and the media, in the U.S. in particular (and probably much of the rest of the Western World) think everybody is rich enough to afford a great smart phone plan, and they think that everybody in the world has awesome broadband available to listen to internet broadcasts. I mean, they have it, their own families have it, so doesn't everybody?
And this line of out-of-touch thinking drifts over to their view of how people live in Third World countries. They see a photo on the internet of Jane Q Third World person with a smart phone in hand, and they automatically think that everyone in ________ (fill in the name of whatever Third World country you wish) has internet service just as readily available, and as affordable, as it is in many Western countries.
It's not just the U.S. that has this issue.
The powers that be in the Australian government somehow think that people on isolated Pacific Islands are going to get Radio Australia on their smart phone. Never mind that there are issues with power in some of those countries. Never mind that R. Oz blasts in so well that even the cheapest, two chip, single conversion, 700 Mw output transistor SW radio will pick it up -- just using a few AA's. And it will do it with a speaker that's loud enough that two people can listen for longer than an hour or so.
It's a case of politicians and policy makers thinking everybody lives just like them and their neighbors.
And also apparently a case of those running the SW services not making a strong enough case to keep the funding alive.
