HFU HF Underground
General Category => General Radio Discussion => Topic started by: ka1iic on July 30, 2014, 1543 UTC
-
http://www.pcjmedia.com/home/1-latest-news/155-the-future-of-shortwave-broadcasting-by-bob-zanotti
The gentleman gives some excellent reasons about ShortWave broadcasting... Problem is... Is anyone listening to his common sense?
IMHO he is spot on... What does the group think here?
-
http://www.pcjmedia.com/home/1-latest-news/155-the-future-of-shortwave-broadcasting-by-bob-zanotti
The gentleman gives some excellent reasons about ShortWave broadcasting... Problem is... Is anyone listening to his common sense?
IMHO he is spot on... What does the group think here?
This is a great article which I wholeheartedly agree with. Some broadcasters are jumping the gun and are cutting if not discontinuing their shortwave broadcast, when that technology is still relevant today. Two examples that come to mind are the Voice of Russia and more recently, the Voice of America. While this trend will surely continue, I'm thankful to see that it's happening way slower than I expected. Chances are, there will still be many stations inhabiting the airwaves, even when 2020 rolls around.
-
I think He's dead on. Another short sighted calamity of all this is that the people who need shortwave the most are the ones destined to lose. Those people in developing nations without another voice, internet, satellite, et al. Sure, it takes a lot to run a shortwave station. Lots of capital, people, land, ect, but it also required the least from the listener. In many cases, you don't need power. I've yet to see a crank-powered satellite TV.
+-RH
-
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.
-
Well said.
+-RH
-
Excellent points BoomBox!! kudos... you nailed the second nut... :)
-
Thanks guys.
Hopefully at some time in the next year or so some of the Western countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, etc.) will see the value in SW broadcasting. There are a lot of people in the Third World, and they present a huge potential market for our goods. But also could be potential allies as well.
Just like one of the two articles posted recently on HFU implies: the Chinese understand this. Why shouldn't our countries also?
73, Boombox
-
These broadcasters are very short sighted in that, if they drop the stations they will soon be torn down... a shame really because the cost to replace them will be a whole lot greater than to maintain what is already there.
One big blast of EMP or if the Sun should do something radical in the future they will wish that had kept these stations and so often I have seen emergency situations where these stations would have been or have been of great value. Not only is it an issue of listening but an issue of human health and welfare. Not to mention distant areas with little or no communication...
I'm a firm believer in the 'Butterfly Effect'... chaos... It's a reality and we MUST learn to deal with it.
Sorry folks but this issue makes me so frustrated...
-
I'm not as worried about an EMP or a blast from the Sun, but more of gov't monitoring or gov't firewalls.
Listen to some foreign station via the Internet might just get you on a watch list or rounded up for being an enemy of the state.
If the gov't firewall is working (e.g. the Great Firewall of China), then you're only allowed to listen to what the gov't allows.
At least with SW, jamming was usually partially effective and at substantial cost, and they can't block all frequencies. A firewall is relatively easy, cheap and more effective.
Even if you have Internet and able to stream, what about data caps and the recurring cost of the Internet connection? Shortwave radio is cheaper.
I'll keep my SW radios. Streaming stations through TOR is crappy.
-
Even more good points skeezix... and you are very correct... I hope someone with better talents than myself could work all that has been said into a proper working paper to present to... ?
Next please :)