From heritageradio@msn.com Mon Aug 2 02:29:03 2010 From: heritageradio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:29:03 -0400 Subject: FOX Problems Message-ID: The baseball game was a bit less complete without the total "scorebox" but not nearly as annoying as NESN's ongoing unbalanced audio problems that renders the Don & Jerr's voices low gain compared to silm/studio. From raccoonradio@mail.com Mon Aug 2 11:12:59 2010 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (raccoonradio@mail.com) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:12:59 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC Message-ID: <8CD006C53FB8CCC-3FC-29D6@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> The other day I thought I heard the theme for ABC on WRKO on the half hour...and now someone posted on a conservative message board: >>No more FOX news on RKO, now ABC News - WTH? WTH? Well it looks like the last vestige of Premiere Radio is gone from WRKO. You'll remember that they lost Rush, Beck, Coast to Coast, Bill Cunningham, etc. with the debut of WXKS 1200. Owned by Clear Channel whose Premiere has those shows, plus Fox News and I think Fox Sports Radio, too (There is a "Fox News Talk" network with shows like Brian Kilmeade and John Gibson but that's a separate company) For awhile both WRKO and WXKS were running Fox News--on the latter, some local headlines then some Fox News. But as I said above it's apparently gone--no doubt pulled by CC/Premiere and is now on WXKS only. So they must have picked up ABC news. In the past I remember ABC news being on WRKO, also on WBZ. WRKO was also briefly a CBS affiliate (now WBZ of course) From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Mon Aug 2 13:46:29 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (revdoug1@myfairpoint.net) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:46:29 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC Message-ID: <20100802134629.rkt3p80ej5u0444s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> WRKO was an NBC affiliate for a while, during the time when GE turned the radio network over to Westwood One. Willard Scott used to do a five-minute weekday broadcast that I recall hearing on 'RKO, also Jane Pauley doing the 10 AM newscast. (These were before WW1 eviscerated the network. Don't get me started . . . ) I haven't noticed --- is 'BZ still an ABC affiliate as well? It was up until a week or two ago. -Doug Quoting raccoonradio@mail.com: > > The other day I thought I heard the theme for ABC on WRKO on the half > hour...and now someone posted on a conservative message board: > > >>No more FOX news on RKO, now ABC News - WTH? WTH? > > Well it looks like the last vestige of Premiere Radio is gone from > WRKO. You'll > remember that they lost Rush, Beck, Coast to Coast, Bill Cunningham, > etc. with > the debut of WXKS 1200. > Owned by Clear Channel whose Premiere has those shows, plus Fox News > and I think > Fox Sports Radio, too (There is a "Fox News Talk" network with shows > like Brian > Kilmeade > and John Gibson but that's a separate company) > > For awhile both WRKO and WXKS were running Fox News--on the latter, > some local > headlines > then some Fox News. But as I said above it's apparently gone--no > doubt pulled by > CC/Premiere and is now on WXKS only. So they must have picked up ABC news. > > In the past I remember ABC news being on WRKO, also on WBZ. WRKO was also > briefly > a CBS affiliate (now WBZ of course) > > From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Aug 3 00:14:13 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:14:13 -0400 Subject: RIP Mitch Miller Message-ID: Mitch Miller who died Sunday at the age of 99 certainly shaped what we called MOR radio in the 50's and 60's by being head of Columbia Records. He despised rock and refused to sign Buddy Holly and Elvis and said Sinatra was washed up Here is a fun clip and about 4 minutes in a surprising cameo in the song Mary Lou http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ5GwzvkN-k Now it occurred to me today that while Mitch recorded for Columbia Records (CBS) the show was on NBC (RCA) and given the General's hatred of Paley and CBS I find that fascinating. The show was taped at NBC's Brooklyn facility near Coney Island. From sid@wrko.com Tue Aug 3 08:59:22 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:59:22 -0600 Subject: RIP Mitch Miller In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55437CF124@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> "He despised rock..." Very far from the truth. What he despised was cheap production values, bubble-gum lyrics and the, shall we say, questionable practices in vogue at the time to get rock records on the air. He was in charge of A&R at Columbia Records when they signed Bob Dylan (although a subordinate, John Hammond, had more to do with signing Dylan than Miller did), Aretha Franklin and Bruce Springsteen. Being classically trained as an oboist, he cared much more about quality music and recordings, whatever the genre. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Aug 3 14:20:17 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:20:17 +0000 Subject: RIP Mitch Miller In-Reply-To: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55437CF124@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55437CF124@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <507199737-1280859617-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1474472400-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Sadly we always learn more after someone dies The Carson clip turns out was Johnny's first time on NBC - that clip aired in April of 62 (it can be pinned down by hockey promo in credits) Carson was still at ABC at the time and really unknown to most - that would change Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: Sid Schweiger Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:59:22 To: (newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest Subject: RE: RIP Mitch Miller "He despised rock..." Very far from the truth. What he despised was cheap production values, bubble-gum lyrics and the, shall we say, questionable practices in vogue at the time to get rock records on the air. He was in charge of A&R at Columbia Records when they signed Bob Dylan (although a subordinate, John Hammond, had more to do with signing Dylan than Miller did), Aretha Franklin and Bruce Springsteen. Being classically trained as an oboist, he cared much more about quality music and recordings, whatever the genre. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From markwats@comcast.net Tue Aug 3 19:16:50 2010 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:16:50 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC References: <20100802134629.rkt3p80ej5u0444s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: Doug wrote: > I haven't noticed --- is 'BZ still an ABC affiliate as well? It was up > until a week or two ago. - They aired an ABC report on the Manchester CT shooting rampage at 2:31PM today. Mark Watson From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Tue Aug 3 19:47:36 2010 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:47:36 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC In-Reply-To: References: <20100802134629.rkt3p80ej5u0444s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <4C58AA98.7070307@ttlc.net> Mark Watson wrote: > Doug wrote: > >> I haven't noticed --- is 'BZ still an ABC affiliate as well? It was >> up until a week or two ago. - > > They aired an ABC report on the Manchester CT shooting rampage at > 2:31PM today. > > Mark Watson "Vic Rattner (sp?) - ABC News" is a regular correspondent on WBZ. From markwats@comcast.net Tue Aug 3 20:31:41 2010 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:31:41 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC References: <20100802134629.rkt3p80ej5u0444s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <4C58AA98.7070307@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <07336421CF284B0EB442B93D7CB58F05@Mark> Roger Kirk wrote: > "Vic Rattner (sp?) - ABC News" is a regular correspondent on WBZ. No, it was Aaron Katersky (sp?) on the report I heard. Mark Watson From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 3 23:59:23 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:59:23 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC In-Reply-To: References: <20100802134629.rkt3p80ej5u0444s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <19544.58779.407641.673461@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Doug wrote: >> I haven't noticed --- is 'BZ still an ABC affiliate as well? It was up >> until a week or two ago. - > They aired an ABC report on the Manchester CT shooting rampage at 2:31PM > today. The radio networks long ago gave up on that sort of affiliate exclusivity; these days the policy is "if you run the spots[1], you get to air the content". (Affiliates, of course, still care about the *other* sort of exclusivity, that nobody else in the market can carry the same content. Presumably WRKO is running one of the other ABC news feeds -- ISTR that they were using ABC Entertainment last time around, but I have no idea what this is called in the post-Disney era.) -GAWollman [1] And, of course, pay the rights feeds for those programs that aren't strict barter. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Aug 4 00:39:39 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (revdoug1@myfairpoint.net) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:39:39 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC Message-ID: <20100804003939.jxuw09xirh4cc0w0@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Is there any word as to whether any other station is picking up the Fox affiliation? And BTW --- does WTKK still carry the one-minute NBC News Radio newscasts? -Doug Quoting Garrett Wollman : > < said: > > > Doug wrote: > >> I haven't noticed --- is 'BZ still an ABC affiliate as well? It was up > >> until a week or two ago. - > > > They aired an ABC report on the Manchester CT shooting rampage at 2:31PM > > today. > > The radio networks long ago gave up on that sort of affiliate > exclusivity; these days the policy is "if you run the spots[1], you get > to air the content". (Affiliates, of course, still care about the > *other* sort of exclusivity, that nobody else in the market can carry > the same content. Presumably WRKO is running one of the other ABC > news feeds -- ISTR that they were using ABC Entertainment last time > around, but I have no idea what this is called in the post-Disney > era.) > > -GAWollman > > [1] And, of course, pay the rights feeds for those programs that > aren't strict barter. > From raccoonradio@gmail.com Wed Aug 4 03:16:45 2010 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:16:45 -0400 Subject: WRKO loses Fox, picks up ABC In-Reply-To: <20100804003939.jxuw09xirh4cc0w0@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100804003939.jxuw09xirh4cc0w0@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: You mean a second affiliate besides WXKS? I don't know if Fox is offering itself to a second station, as they were doing with having both WRKO and WXKS, but WTKK prob. wouldn't mind having them... On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:39 AM, wrote: > Is there any word as to whether any other station is picking up the Fox > affiliation? From kvahey@gmail.com Wed Aug 4 22:53:25 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 22:53:25 -0400 Subject: Charles LOSES to Ralph Emery Message-ID: Another Bruce Dumont election stunner - Here are the winners of the 2010 Radio HoF election From heritageradio@msn.com Thu Aug 5 19:15:54 2010 From: heritageradio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:15:54 -0400 Subject: ?? Attachment missing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kevin says: "Here are the winners......" Where ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Vahey To: (newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:53 PM Subject: Charles LOSES to Ralph Emery Another Bruce Dumont election stunner - Here are the winners of the 2010 Radio HoF election From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Aug 7 09:04:47 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (revdoug1@myfairpoint.net) Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:04:47 -0400 Subject: What's with WBZ this morning? Message-ID: <20100807090447.djvgwgbexyf4so8w@webmail.myfairpoint.net> I live near Blue Hill, Maine, where normally WBZ's killer signal comes in as though the transmitter were next door. I just tuned in to listen to the news and I can hardly pick up the station this morning --- it's faint and distant. All the other Boston area signals are coming as well as usual. Does anyone know what's up? From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Aug 7 10:59:28 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:59:28 -0400 Subject: What's with WBZ this morning? References: <20100807090447.djvgwgbexyf4so8w@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: Where I live (Arlington Heights near the Lexington line, just north of Route 2), there is no discernible difference in signal strength when WBZ uses its auxiliary 10-kW ND transmitter at 1170 Solders' Field Rd or the main 50 kW DA-1 Tx in Hull. But I can tell you that, last evening, during some thunder storms, I wondered whether they were switching between the main and auxilary rigs. The carrier would drop completely for a few seconds and then the signal would return. This happened several times. I wondered whether, if I lived somewhere where the main and auxiliary signals were not so close to equal in strength, I would be aware that they were indeed switching between transmitters. I believe they were, but I can't prove it. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "=?utf-8?b??=" Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:04 AM Subject: What's with WBZ this morning? >I live near Blue Hill, Maine, where normally WBZ's killer signal >comes in as though the transmitter were next door. I just tuned in >to listen to the news and I can hardly pick up the station this >morning --- it's faint and distant. All the other Boston area >signals are coming as well as usual. Does anyone know what's up? > From stevesnow1@gmail.com Wed Aug 4 12:48:09 2010 From: stevesnow1@gmail.com (Steve Snow) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:48:09 -0400 Subject: RIP Mitch Miller Message-ID: As an aside, also please note a not-yet-celebrity Bob McGrath who Mitch addresses by name singing in the chorus later in the clip. We have come to know him better on Sesame Street. From stevesnow1@gmail.com Fri Aug 6 11:54:47 2010 From: stevesnow1@gmail.com (Steve Snow) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:54:47 -0400 Subject: Anybody have this HD model? Message-ID: Update: New rev. of the Insignia HD Portable Receiver is now showing up at BestBuy: http://www.radioworld.com/article/104134 Not sure how to identify the new units except perhaps by the manufacturing dates?? Serial Number?? Anyone care to share info? From jscavo@maine.rr.com Sat Aug 7 17:55:01 2010 From: jscavo@maine.rr.com (John) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 17:55:01 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? Message-ID: <9AFFD4E44A4A49D8AF1199FF0380D066@vpr1> -----Original Message----- From: John [mailto:jscavo@maine.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 5:54 PM To: 'revdoug1@myfairpoint.net' Subject: RE: What's with WBZ this morning? Importance: Low Same thing this morning North of Boston, and barely audible in Portsmouth. The HD radio had audio that sounded like a tin can. They seem to be fine now! -----Original Message----- From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net [mailto:revdoug1@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:05 AM To: =?utf-8?b??= Subject: What's with WBZ this morning? I live near Blue Hill, Maine, where normally WBZ's killer signal comes in as though the transmitter were next door. I just tuned in to listen to the news and I can hardly pick up the station this morning --- it's faint and distant. All the other Boston area signals are coming as well as usual. Does anyone know what's up? From bob.bosra@demattia.net Sat Aug 7 23:36:09 2010 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:36:09 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? In-Reply-To: <9AFFD4E44A4A49D8AF1199FF0380D066@vpr1> References: <9AFFD4E44A4A49D8AF1199FF0380D066@vpr1> Message-ID: On a related note, WODS HD audio was sounding pretty bad last night too. On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:55 PM, John wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John [mailto:jscavo@maine.rr.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 5:54 PM > To: 'revdoug1@myfairpoint.net' > Subject: RE: What's with WBZ this morning? > Importance: Low > > Same thing this morning North of Boston, and barely audible in Portsmouth. > The HD radio had audio that sounded like a tin can. > > They seem to be fine now! > > -----Original Message----- > From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net [mailto:revdoug1@myfairpoint.net] > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:05 AM > To: =?utf-8?b??= > Subject: What's with WBZ this morning? > > I live near Blue Hill, Maine, where normally WBZ's killer signal comes in as > though the transmitter were next door. ?I just tuned in to listen to the > news and I can hardly pick up the station this morning --- it's faint and > distant. ? All the other Boston area signals are coming as well as usual. > Does anyone know what's up? > > > > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Aug 8 00:02:19 2010 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 00:02:19 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? In-Reply-To: References: <9AFFD4E44A4A49D8AF1199FF0380D066@vpr1> Message-ID: <004d01cb36ae$7fa302b0$7ee90810$@net> > On a related note, WODS HD audio was sounding pretty bad last night > too. WJMN's HD is showing "HD" where the call letters normally are, and there's no HD2. 88.9 WERS is also showing "HD." Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From kvahey@gmail.com Sat Aug 7 23:20:14 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:20:14 -0400 Subject: CBS New York combines websites Message-ID: CBS has merged the websites of WCBS WFAN WINS and CBS2 into one portal Not impressed http://newyork.cbslocal.com/ From kc1ih@mac.com Sun Aug 8 12:32:06 2010 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:32:06 -0400 Subject: Anybody have this HD model? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2240C5EC-D5B0-418C-AC1A-7DC97B058492@mac.com> I couldn't find anything in the article or the product description saying what ( if anything) is different from the original model. Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH Sent from my iPhone Big freekin deal! On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Steve Snow wrote: > Update: > > New rev. of the Insignia HD Portable Receiver is now showing up at BestBuy: > http://www.radioworld.com/article/104134 > > Not sure how to identify the new units except perhaps by the manufacturing > dates?? Serial Number?? > > Anyone care to share info? From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sun Aug 8 12:47:03 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?RG91ZyBEcm93bg==?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:47:03 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? Message-ID: <20100808124703.qbab2pjdl4ow8ko8@webmail.myfairpoint.net> 'BZ did the same thing this morning --- when I turned it on at 6:30, it had a clear, strong signal, then about an hour later it abruptly "downsized", presumably switching to its 10-kw alternate transmitter. It's still there. At this point (12:45), even WEZE is coming in better. -Doug Quoting Jeff Lehmann : > > On a related note, WODS HD audio was sounding pretty bad last night > > too. > > WJMN's HD is showing "HD" where the call letters normally are, and there's > no HD2. 88.9 WERS is also showing "HD." > > Jeff Lehmann > Hanson, MA > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Aug 8 12:52:01 2010 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:52:01 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? In-Reply-To: <20100808124703.qbab2pjdl4ow8ko8@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100808124703.qbab2pjdl4ow8ko8@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <007f01cb371a$060af590$1220e0b0$@net> > 'BZ did the same thing this morning --- when I turned it on at 6:30, it > had a clear, strong signal, then about an hour later it abruptly > "downsized", presumably switching to its 10-kw alternate transmitter. > It's still there. At this point (12:45), even WEZE is coming in > better. -Doug Yes, right now here in Hanson, on my Kenwood TS-570 ham rig, I'm getting a S9 signal from WBZ with no IBOC sidebands. Normally when operating from Hull, they are S9+40. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From irw@well.com Sun Aug 8 14:50:50 2010 From: irw@well.com (Blaine Thompson) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 11:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CBS New York combines websites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Not impressed Why aren't you impressed? From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Aug 8 18:44:49 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 18:44:49 -0400 Subject: Thank goodness WCBS-AM is radio Message-ID: Why I despise John Sterling - watch closely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZ9U3F6ZtY From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Aug 8 23:38:23 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:38:23 -0400 Subject: UNS: Thank goodness WCBS-AM is radio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19551.30767.181117.977322@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Why I despise John Sterling - watch closely > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZ9U3F6ZtY Please don't just post random links here. If you have something you want people to look at, *tell them what it is*. Last warning. -GAWollman From rac@gabrielmass.com Sun Aug 8 23:56:06 2010 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:56:06 -0400 Subject: UNS: Thank goodness WCBS-AM is radio In-Reply-To: <19551.30767.181117.977322@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <19551.30767.181117.977322@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4C5F7C56.2020406@server4.gabrielmass.com> On 08/08/2010 11:38 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> Why I despise John Sterling - watch closely >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZ9U3F6ZtY > > Please don't just post random links here. If you have something you > want people to look at, *tell them what it is*. Yeah, I didn't get the point of the post either. Is it so bad that the announcer is rooting for the Yankees (the home team) and that some guy behind him is doing a victory dance? Who cares? --RC From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Aug 9 04:25:36 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 04:25:36 -0400 Subject: WBZ-FM turns 1 Message-ID: The Monday Globe looks at the sports radio landscape and sees that BZ-FM is more in tune with the under 30 audience. Jason Wolfe even concedes BZ-FM is not 1510 or 890. http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2010/08/09/weei_wbz_fighting_for_sports_talk_victories/?page=full From mariogonz@aol.com Mon Aug 9 06:34:14 2010 From: mariogonz@aol.com (Mario Gonzalez Jr.) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:34:14 -0400 Subject: UNS: Thank goodness WCBS-AM is radio In-Reply-To: <4C5F7C56.2020406@server4.gabrielmass.com> References: <19551.30767.181117.977322@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4C5F7C56.2020406@server4.gabrielmass.com> Message-ID: I'm a Yankee fan and I loved the link. I always wondered what he looked like when he did this call ... Now I know. Mario Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Richard Chonak wrote: > On 08/08/2010 11:38 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> < said: >> >>> Why I despise John Sterling - watch closely >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZ9U3F6ZtY >> >> Please don't just post random links here. If you have something you >> want people to look at, *tell them what it is*. > > Yeah, I didn't get the point of the post either. Is it so bad that the announcer is rooting for the Yankees (the home team) and that some guy behind him is doing a victory dance? Who cares? > > --RC > From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Aug 9 07:30:39 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:30:39 -0400 Subject: UNS: Thank goodness WCBS-AM is radio In-Reply-To: <4C5F7C56.2020406@server4.gabrielmass.com> References: <19551.30767.181117.977322@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4C5F7C56.2020406@server4.gabrielmass.com> Message-ID: Obviously that is John Sterling's signature call which even many NYY fans can't stand anymore. He is the ONLY radio announcer in baseball who does anything like that (the shake). I just thought it was hysterical to see him do it. Sorry Garrett, I thought by saying watch him closely I was describing what the link was about without revealing the end. On 8/8/10, Richard Chonak wrote: > On 08/08/2010 11:38 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> < said: >> >>> Why I despise John Sterling - watch closely >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZ9U3F6ZtY >> >> Please don't just post random links here. If you have something you >> want people to look at, *tell them what it is*. > > Yeah, I didn't get the point of the post either. Is it so bad that the > announcer is rooting for the Yankees (the home team) and that some guy > behind him is doing a victory dance? Who cares? > > --RC > > From markwa1ion@aol.com Mon Aug 9 13:58:52 2010 From: markwa1ion@aol.com (markwa1ion@aol.com) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:58:52 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? Message-ID: <8CD0603A97F82C2-EF0-358B@webmail-m031.sysops.aol.com> A South Shore member on a DX-related e-mail list verified that WBZ has recently been switching between the main transmitter in Hull and the auxiliary in Allston-Brighton. This was determined by the use of a balanced loop antenna of known null-bearing accuracy. This may have started following a thunderstorm last Thursday (I think). It was minimal north of Boston but really whacked the South Shore. I was in the parking area at the Wilmington Plaza around 5 p.m. or a bit later that afternoon and I observed ominously dark clouds to the south. I was listening to WBZ and at the same time there was a static crackle, the signal dropped off for a couple of seconds. I think it happened again about a minute later. The weather report was advising about a potent thunderstorm cell heading from Hingham towards Plymouth. So maybe there was some damage at Hull that, although not "fatal", may have required some near-future preventative maintenance (feedline or insulator replacement maybe?) to keep the facility from going down completely at some point. Likely it made sense to do this work on a weekend instead of during weekday drivetimes. Mark Connelly, WA1ION Billerica, MA + South Yarmouth, MA << Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:52:01 -0400 Subject: FW: What's with WBZ this morning? > 'BZ did the same thing this morning --- when I turned it on at 6:30, it > had a clear, strong signal, then about an hour later it abruptly > "downsized", presumably switching to its 10-kw alternate transmitter. > It's still there. At this point (12:45), even WEZE is coming in > better. -Doug Yes, right now here in Hanson, on my Kenwood TS-570 ham rig, I'm getting a S9 signal from WBZ with no IBOC sidebands. Normally when operating from Hull, they are S9+40. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA >> From scott@fybush.com Mon Aug 9 13:28:09 2010 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:28:09 -0400 Subject: Fybush heading east... Message-ID: <4C603AA9.5080706@fybush.com> ...and while there's no formal NERW dinner planned this time, there might be some interesting opportunities to get together. Dan Kelleher at WTAG has graciously agreed to host a very informal open house at his transmitter site, Tuesday afternoon starting around 2. I'll be there, and anyone else who's interested is welcome. And is anyone else up for a PawSox game Friday night? s From kc1ih@mac.com Mon Aug 9 16:14:46 2010 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:14:46 -0400 Subject: Fybush heading east... In-Reply-To: <4C603AA9.5080706@fybush.com> References: <4C603AA9.5080706@fybush.com> Message-ID: <000901cb37ff$87806d40$968147c0$@com> I might be interested in dinner Tues or Wed. I have some stuff I need to do Tues afternoon, but I'm free later on. > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of Scott Fybush > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:28 PM > To: (newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest > Subject: Fybush heading east... > > ...and while there's no formal NERW dinner planned this time, there > might be some interesting opportunities to get together. > > Dan Kelleher at WTAG has graciously agreed to host a very informal open > house at his transmitter site, Tuesday afternoon starting around 2. > I'll > be there, and anyone else who's interested is welcome. > > And is anyone else up for a PawSox game Friday night? > > s From markwats@comcast.net Tue Aug 10 22:18:18 2010 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:18:18 -0400 Subject: Dale Dorman To Appear On WCAP Wednesday Afternoon Message-ID: <1A2FB94B6A554D5B8A7A2FC3A3318345@Mark> Boston radio legend Dale Dorman will be a guest on Dean Johnson's talk show on WCAP (980 Lowell) Wednesday afternoon. Dale's appearance is scheduled for the first part of the show, after the 1:00PM news. No doubt Dale will be talking about his many years in Boston radio but will also be talking about his upcoming induction to the Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame next month. For those of you outside of WCAP's signal range you can hear the show streamed live via WCAP's website: www.980wcap.com Mark Watson From kvahey@gmail.com Thu Aug 12 08:16:34 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:16:34 -0400 Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time Message-ID: Talkers Magazine lists their Top 100 hosts of all time and Boston is well represented http://talkers.com/online/?p=6388 target= Jerry Williams is at #18. Others with local connections are Gene,David, Howie, Jay, the Car Talk guys and the late Judy Jarvis (I was involved with her first TV show at channel 56 - Cambridge, USA when at least a token attempt was made to serve the COL) Nancy Donellen (Sports Babe) is a Boston native but did music at WRKO and WVBF before becoming a sports show host in Tampa, Seattle and ESPN. From kvahey@gmail.com Thu Aug 12 23:32:18 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:32:18 -0400 Subject: WWZN has a suitor but Message-ID: Down in Foxboro and talking to a front office employee of the Kraft Entertainment Group (Patriots-Revolution-Patriot Place) They are looking at buying 1510 and what I am told it involves moving the transmitter to land they have in Foxboro. Apparently some consulting firm has whipped up a pattern that might pass muster in Washington. They have NO interest in the current transmitter location and signal but feel from Foxboro they could cover the market and it would be an ESPN outlet and and outlet for the soccer team - the Pats would stay at 98.5 OK pattern gurus - using Gillette Stadium as ground zero could they really do something with 1510? From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Aug 13 01:02:20 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:02:20 -0400 Subject: WWZN has a suitor but In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19556.53724.781408.840918@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > They are looking at buying 1510 and what I am told it involves moving > the transmitter to land they have in Foxboro. Apparently some > consulting firm has whipped up a pattern that might pass muster in > Washington. They would have a decent signal but not fantastic and not full-market by any means. Remember that WBZ performed poorly when it was in Millis before 1939. They would need to get the Canadians to denotify at least one dead 1510 somehow, which nobody has had any luck with so far. Assuming the Canadian issue can be worked around, they would still need to protect WLAC, but they would no longer have to worry about KGA -- the app could be conditional on the FCC granting KGA's license to cover -- already filed -- on the class-B downgrade. It would be a good South Shore signal, and would serve MetroWest at night (but not during the day as they'd have to protect WMRC). There are various other issues on the adjacents, the most pressing of which I'd guess was WFED thanks to the salt-water path south of Rhode Island. The town would not likely be a problem as they love the tax revenue they get from the Krafts. It could easily be first local service to Foxboro, as well. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Aug 13 07:44:38 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:44:38 -0400 Subject: WWZN has a suitor but References: Message-ID: >From Foxboro, there is slim chance of keeping the station licensed to Boston. That isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, though. Norwood or Foxboro itself would be possibilities. A big problem would be the late, and as far as I can tell unlamented, CJRS. Dark for a generation or not, CJRS still requires nighttime protection, so the night signal in a fairly narrow corridor more or less due north of Foxboro would be limited to an inverse-distance field of ~1185 mV/m @ 1 km, which is the current nighttime ID field at 349 degrees. From the current site, that signal barely gets 1510 to Burlington at night. Therefore, with a Tx far southwest of Boston, 1510's night signal in places like much of Newton would be, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. If ESPN was unhappy with 890, they would be even more unhappy with 1510. ESPN did not pay anything for 890 because they didn't buy it. So the price was right. They would be paying a bundle to move 1510, and in much of the market, the signal would be no better than 890's. This project is tailor-made only for dupes with deep pockets. I wonder if the site is the same one to which Alex Langer once applied to move 650. It was just east of Route 1 in Wrentham--almost in Rhode Island. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:32 PM Subject: WWZN has a suitor but > Down in Foxboro and talking to a front office employee of the Kraft > Entertainment Group (Patriots-Revolution-Patriot Place) > > They are looking at buying 1510 and what I am told it involves > moving > the transmitter to land they have in Foxboro. Apparently some > consulting firm has whipped up a pattern that might pass muster in > Washington. > > They have NO interest in the current transmitter location and signal > but feel from Foxboro they could cover the market and it would be an > ESPN outlet and and outlet for the soccer team - the Pats would stay > at 98.5 > > OK pattern gurus - using Gillette Stadium as ground zero could they > really do something with 1510? From sean.smyth@yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 08:31:58 2010 From: sean.smyth@yahoo.com (Sean Smyth) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WWZN has a suitor but In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <975277.80795.qm@web110509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> On Fri, 8/13/10, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >From Foxboro, there is slim > chance of keeping the station licensed to > Boston. That isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, though. > Norwood or > Foxboro itself would be possibilities. A big problem would > be the > late, and as far as I can tell unlamented, CJRS. Dark for a > generation > or not, CJRS still requires nighttime protection, so the > night signal > in a fairly narrow corridor more or less due north of > Foxboro would be > limited to an inverse-distance field of? ~1185 mV/m @ > 1 km, which is > the current nighttime ID field at 349 degrees. From the > current site, > that signal barely gets 1510 to Burlington at night. > Therefore, with a > Tx far southwest of Boston, 1510's night signal in places > like much of > Newton would be, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. > If ESPN was > unhappy with 890, they would be even more unhappy with > 1510. ESPN did > not pay anything for 890 because they didn't buy it. So the > price was > right. They would be paying a bundle to move 1510, and in > much of the > market, the signal would be no better than 890's. This > project is > tailor-made only for dupes with deep pockets. > > I wonder if the site is the same one to which Alex Langer > once applied > to move 650. It was just east of Route 1 in > Wrentham--almost in Rhode > Island. 1. The Krafts, not ESPN, would buy 1510. 2. The site would be on the Krafts' land in Foxboro(ugh). I'm pretty sure their property doesn't extend into Wrentham, but I could be wrong about that. From pbencurrier@hotmail.com Fri Aug 13 11:56:10 2010 From: pbencurrier@hotmail.com (Paul Currier) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:56:10 -0400 Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What, no Glick? Paul Sandwich > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:16:34 -0400 > Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time > From: kvahey@gmail.com > To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org > > Talkers Magazine lists their Top 100 hosts of all time and Boston is > well represented > > http://talkers.com/online/?p=6388 target= > > Jerry Williams is at #18. Others with local connections are > Gene,David, Howie, Jay, the Car Talk guys and the late Judy Jarvis (I > was involved with her first TV show at channel 56 - Cambridge, USA > when at least a token attempt was made to serve the COL) > > Nancy Donellen (Sports Babe) is a Boston native but did music at WRKO > and WVBF before becoming a sports show host in Tampa, Seattle and > ESPN. From lsochrin@rcn.com Fri Aug 13 13:14:44 2010 From: lsochrin@rcn.com (Larry Sochrin) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:14:44 -0400 Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DC52066-42B9-40DD-8B2E-059916820B95@rcn.com> Good selection, but I find them including Father Coughlin, whose broadcasts weren't talk hosting as much as horrendous anti-semitic rants and arguments supporting both Hitler and Mussolini to be shameful. Hitler broadcast long speeches on similar topics, so under this approach, I'm surprised they didn't include him, or some other genocidal maniacs, in the Top 100 talk show hosts of all time. Truly shameful. On Aug 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, boston-radio-interest- request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:16:34 -0400 >> Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time >> From: kvahey@gmail.com >> To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org >> >> Talkers Magazine lists their Top 100 hosts of all time and Boston is >> well represented >> >> http://talkers.com/online/?p=6388 target= >> >> Jerry Williams is at #18. Others with local connections are >> Gene,David, Howie, Jay, the Car Talk guys and the late Judy Jarvis (I >> was involved with her first TV show at channel 56 - Cambridge, USA >> when at least a token attempt was made to serve the COL) >> >> Nancy Donellen (Sports Babe) is a Boston native but did music at WRKO >> and WVBF before becoming a sports show host in Tampa, Seattle and >> ESPN. > From pbencurrier@hotmail.com Fri Aug 13 17:48:53 2010 From: pbencurrier@hotmail.com (Paul Currier) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:48:53 -0400 Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time In-Reply-To: <8CD0921DBE7F582-1BB0-7D38@web-mmc-m07.sysops.aol.com> References: , <8CD0921DBE7F582-1BB0-7D38@web-mmc-m07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: WOW! And I missed the shameful omission of Bob & Ray. Shame on me! Paul To: pbencurrier@hotmail.com; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:12:35 -0400 From: lglavin@mail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Currier >To: kvahey@gmail.com; boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org >Sent: Fri, Aug 13, 2010 11:56 am >Subject: RE: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time >What, no Glick? >Paul >Sandwich The list includes a few 'X' and 'X' combinations; how could they have left off Bob and Ray? From ssmyth@psualum.com Sat Aug 14 02:46:35 2010 From: ssmyth@psualum.com (Sean Smyth) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MLB Extra Innings feeds Message-ID: <401567.96851.qm@web110507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I recently picked up the MLB Extra Innings package. I'm not sure exactly how they select which team's broadcast they'll use -- I thought it was the home team primarily, but I've discovered that's not the case. For instance, the Texas-Red Sox game tonight was NESN's broadcast. Anyway, my question relates to the feeds themselves. (I figure Kevin can answer this.) When we get the NESN broadcasts, the local spots always are Connecticut ads. Any particular reason for that? From kvahey@gmail.com Sat Aug 14 08:07:35 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:07:35 +0000 Subject: MLB Extra Innings feeds In-Reply-To: <401567.96851.qm@web110507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <401567.96851.qm@web110507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1479110365-1281787656-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1256688816-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Extra Innings uses the feed that goes to RI and Conn as the feed for Boston area headends is delivered by fiber to improve HD (see below) Extra Innings tends to default to NESN and YES more often as the package is assembled in Connecticut and then beamed. On DirecTV you can ALWAYS get the NESN feed on 628 as well (as long as you bought EI) if you added the RSN package. Also...ExtraInnings will use a RDN/Cable feed even if team is on the road if the home team is OTA. Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: Sean Smyth Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:46:35 To: Reply-To: ssmyth@psualum.com Subject: MLB Extra Innings feeds I recently picked up the MLB Extra Innings package. I'm not sure exactly how they select which team's broadcast they'll use -- I thought it was the home team primarily, but I've discovered that's not the case. For instance, the Texas-Red Sox game tonight was NESN's broadcast. Anyway, my question relates to the feeds themselves. (I figure Kevin can answer this.) When we get the NESN broadcasts, the local spots always are Connecticut ads. Any particular reason for that? From kvahey@gmail.com Wed Aug 18 21:12:08 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:12:08 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview Message-ID: http://grubstreet.ca/articles/interviews/km/km.htm Grubstreet has just posted an interview with Ken Meyer who was a producer/on air person at WBZ. Great read...enjoy. From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Thu Aug 19 12:07:55 2010 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:07:55 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview References: Message-ID: Does anyone know where Ken is now? Hi was a delight to work with. If I missed it in the article, sorry. Thanks in advance, Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:12 PM Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview > http://grubstreet.ca/articles/interviews/km/km.htm > > Grubstreet has just posted an interview with Ken Meyer who was a > producer/on air person at WBZ. > > Great read...enjoy. > > From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Thu Aug 19 14:12:03 2010 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:12:03 -0400 Subject: Dale Dorman To Appear On WCAP Wednesday Afternoon References: <1A2FB94B6A554D5B8A7A2FC3A3318345@Mark> Message-ID: <627C070A324D4FC28BE91C0477655220@s20035> > Boston radio legend Dale Dorman will be a guest on Dean Johnson's talk > show on WCAP (980 Lowell) Wednesday afternoon. Dale's appearance is > scheduled for the first part of the show, after the 1:00PM news. Did anyone tape/record this? From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Fri Aug 20 13:00:20 2010 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:00:20 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview References: Message-ID: > Does anyone know where Ken is now? Hi was a delight to work with. Last I heard, (a few years ago) he was working for the Mass Comission for the Blind. From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Fri Aug 20 13:32:32 2010 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:32:32 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview References: Message-ID: <161655BD3CB9412EAD2F285A6FCF8B16@YOURbcbbe822ed> Thanks. That makes sense, but Google couldn't find him which is no proof of anything. Regards, Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don" To: "Ted Larsen" Cc: "B-R-I" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview > > > >> Does anyone know where Ken is now? Hi was a delight to work with. > > Last I heard, (a few years ago) he was working for the Mass Comission for > the Blind. > From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Fri Aug 20 13:56:33 2010 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:56:33 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview References: <161655BD3CB9412EAD2F285A6FCF8B16@YOURbcbbe822ed> Message-ID: <156ADBE7118D405FA5AADFC6BBEE25B6@YOURbcbbe822ed> Thanks Dan: Much appreciated. I'll give it a try. Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Ted Larsen" ; "Don" Cc: "B-R-I" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview >I believe--but I am no means sure--that Steve LeVeille had him on as a > guest sometime in the last year or so. If you can get in touch with > LeVeille's producer (Rob ), you might be able to find out > how to get in touch with Kenny. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Larsen" > To: "Don" > Cc: "B-R-I" > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview > > >> Thanks. That makes sense, but Google couldn't find him which is no >> proof of anything. >> >> Regards, >> Ted >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Don" >> To: "Ted Larsen" >> Cc: "B-R-I" >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:00 PM >> Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Does anyone know where Ken is now? Hi was a delight to work with. >>> >>> Last I heard, (a few years ago) he was working for the Mass >>> Comission for the Blind. >>> >> > From gary@garysicecream.com Fri Aug 20 14:26:01 2010 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:26:01 -0400 Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag Message-ID: <0b4001cb4095$248e2030$6daa6090$@com> http://radiomagonline.com/departments/signoff/technical-history-whav/index.h tml From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Aug 20 13:52:45 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:52:45 -0400 Subject: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview References: <161655BD3CB9412EAD2F285A6FCF8B16@YOURbcbbe822ed> Message-ID: I believe--but I am no means sure--that Steve LeVeille had him on as a guest sometime in the last year or so. If you can get in touch with LeVeille's producer (Rob ), you might be able to find out how to get in touch with Kenny. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Larsen" To: "Don" Cc: "B-R-I" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:32 PM Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview > Thanks. That makes sense, but Google couldn't find him which is no > proof of anything. > > Regards, > Ted > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don" > To: "Ted Larsen" > Cc: "B-R-I" > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: Ken 'Muck' Meyer interview > > >> >> >> >>> Does anyone know where Ken is now? Hi was a delight to work with. >> >> Last I heard, (a few years ago) he was working for the Mass >> Comission for the Blind. >> > From HeritageRadio@msn.com Sun Aug 22 02:09:59 2010 From: HeritageRadio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:09:59 -0400 Subject: Ken Myer Message-ID: I will ask Ken if he wants me to release contact information. Tom Heathwood From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Aug 22 07:00:36 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:00:36 -0400 Subject: WESX old tower Message-ID: <88065400BF71494480870FBE76AE3A30@SatU205S5044> Does anyone know whether WESX's old tower in Marblehead is still standing? WESX changed its CoL to Nahant and moved in at WLYN's tower in Lynn more than a year ago (maybe more than two years ago by now). Abandonment of the old WESX site for AM use was really sad because, thanks to the salt water and the geography, it was a superb AM site and WNSH could have used it. If WNSH were transmitting from the old WESX site, it would need well under 10 kw to achieve pretty much the same coverage that now requires 30 kW from its Endicott College site. And yes, I know that the tower was too tall for use at 1570, but the top portion could have been skirted or dismantled, leaving WNSH with a very efficient 200 (or so)-degree tower. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From scott@fybush.com Sun Aug 22 11:30:26 2010 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:30:26 -0400 Subject: WESX old tower In-Reply-To: <88065400BF71494480870FBE76AE3A30@SatU205S5044> References: <88065400BF71494480870FBE76AE3A30@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4C714292.4040908@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Does anyone know whether WESX's old tower in Marblehead is still > standing? WESX changed its CoL to Nahant and moved in at WLYN's tower > in Lynn more than a year ago (maybe more than two years ago by now). > Abandonment of the old WESX site for AM use was really sad because, > thanks to the salt water and the geography, it was a superb AM site > and WNSH could have used it. If WNSH were transmitting from the old > WESX site, it would need well under 10 kw to achieve pretty much the > same coverage that now requires 30 kW from its Endicott College site. > And yes, I know that the tower was too tall for use at 1570, but the > top portion could have been skirted or dismantled, leaving WNSH with a > very efficient 200 (or so)-degree tower. Funny you should ask, Dan - the tower was just dismantled on Wednesday. Pictures in Monday's NERW... s From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Sun Aug 22 12:02:31 2010 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:02:31 -0400 Subject: Ken Myer References: Message-ID: <9E65B344D14348BC8F41F216953BE307@YOURbcbbe822ed> Thanks Tom. Much appreciated. Regards, Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Heathwood" To: "boston-radio-interest" Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:09 AM Subject: Ken Myer I will ask Ken if he wants me to release contact information. Tom Heathwood From lglavin@mail.com Fri Aug 13 13:12:35 2010 From: lglavin@mail.com (lglavin@mail.com) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:12:35 -0400 Subject: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD0921DBE7F582-1BB0-7D38@web-mmc-m07.sysops.aol.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Currier >To: kvahey@gmail.com; boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org >Sent: Fri, Aug 13, 2010 11:56 am >Subject: RE: Top 100 talk show hosts of all time What, no Glick? Paul Sandwich The list includes a few 'X' and 'X' combinations; how could they have left off Bob and Ray? From saz@megabroadband.net Mon Aug 16 20:44:22 2010 From: saz@megabroadband.net (Ceasar Braga Jr) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:44:22 -0400 Subject: Gene Burns In-Reply-To: <5DC52066-42B9-40DD-8B2E-059916820B95@rcn.com> References: <5DC52066-42B9-40DD-8B2E-059916820B95@rcn.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- I have just started listening to the Gene Burns podcasts. I have not heard Gene in many years and can't believe that it's the same guy! He has been transformed from a small government Libertian to a big government left winger. He will absolutely not accept any criticism of Barack Obama and is content to blame the Republicans for virtually all of our countries ills. What happened to this guy!! From lglavin@mail.com Fri Aug 20 16:32:12 2010 From: lglavin@mail.com (lglavin@mail.com) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:32:12 -0400 Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag In-Reply-To: <0b4001cb4095$248e2030$6daa6090$@com> References: <0b4001cb4095$248e2030$6daa6090$@com> Message-ID: <8CD0EBDE7ADACA8-1354-4AAE@web-mmc-m04.sysops.aol.com> >-----Original Message--- >From: Gary's Ice Cream >To: Boston radio e-mail list >Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 2:26 pm >Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag >http://radiomagonline.com/departments/signoff/technical-history-whav/index.h >tml My recollection is that when WHAV-FM returned to the air after its hiatus, it ran TWENTY thousand watts non-directional, at 350 feet HAAT. It was later that the station boosted its ERP to FIFTY thousand watts with a directional antenna on Silver HILL, not Silver HALL of course. It was an obvious directional antenna because every bay looked like a home rooftop TV antenna with two horizontal-only elements and two vertical-only elements. It appears that the requirement of directionality was to protect WPRO-FM 92.3 in Providence, and a relatively new 92.5 in Waterbury, CT (maybe WATR-FM?). Then, just like that, WHAV-FM just replaced those directional bays and went NDA 50 K at 350'. From judys4@earthlink.net Sun Aug 22 02:01:52 2010 From: judys4@earthlink.net (Judy S.) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Message-ID: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Today's Boston Sunday Globe editorial speaks out against mandating FM tuners in portable devices. As part of their point, they call FM "outdated technology." They also say: "Then there?s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, on its way out." http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Aug 22 12:43:10 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:43:10 -0400 Subject: Gene Burns In-Reply-To: References: <5DC52066-42B9-40DD-8B2E-059916820B95@rcn.com> Message-ID: <19569.21406.817628.334133@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I have just started listening to the Gene Burns podcasts. > I have not heard Gene in many years and can't believe that it's the same > guy! [...] > What happened to this guy!! Just to keep everybody on the same level here: I approved this post as it's on-topic (barely), but you shouldn't treat that as license to engage in off-topic political chat. -GAWollman From sid@wrko.com Sun Aug 22 13:13:30 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:13:30 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545769435@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> >>Today's Boston Sunday Globe editorial speaks out against mandating FM tuners in portable devices. As part of their point, they call FM "outdated technology." They also say: "Then there?s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, on its way out." http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links<< Not to be snarky or anything, but I think the pot just called the kettle black. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From Jibguy@aol.com Sun Aug 22 13:36:05 2010 From: Jibguy@aol.com (Jibguy@aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:36:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Message-ID: <3a894.4d09b204.39a2ba05@aol.com> Well at least AM radio wasn't bashed this time! From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Aug 22 20:58:23 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:58:23 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545769435@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545769435@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <19569.51119.141346.879135@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > They also say: "Then there???s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, on its way out." > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links<< > Not to be snarky or anything, but I think the pot just called the kettle black. I don't know about that. I believe it's the case that the Globe's online readership now significantly outnumbers the Globe's dead-tree readership; if the advertising revenues have not followed suit, it's not for lack of trying. I would not be surprised if their online readership greatly outnumbered all other local media outlets'. So they seem to be with it, even if the financials aren't quite working out for them. (Let's see if they continue the trend of retreating behind a paywall.) I don't think there are too many broadcast stations which could say that about their audiences. (I can think of a few, none in this market.) -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Aug 22 23:09:12 2010 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:09:12 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> On 8/22/2010 2:01 AM, Judy S. wrote: > Today's Boston Sunday Globe editorial speaks out against mandating FM tuners in portable devices. > > As part of their point, they call FM "outdated technology." > They also say: "Then there?s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, on its way out." > > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links Well, I don't understand why I should be required to get an FM radio with my next cellphone. If I want an FM radio, I'll get one. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Aug 22 23:57:14 2010 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:57:14 -0400 Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag In-Reply-To: <8CD0EBDE7ADACA8-1354-4AAE@web-mmc-m04.sysops.aol.com> References: <0b4001cb4095$248e2030$6daa6090$@com> <8CD0EBDE7ADACA8-1354-4AAE@web-mmc-m04.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4C71F19A.3070505@attorneyross.com> On 8/20/2010 4:32 PM, lglavin@mail.com wrote: > > My recollection is that when WHAV-FM returned to the air after its hiatus, > it ran TWENTY thousand watts non-directional, at 350 feet HAAT. It was later > that the station boosted its ERP to FIFTY thousand watts with a directional > antenna on Silver HILL, not Silver HALL of course. It was an obvious > directional antenna because every bay looked like a home rooftop TV antenna > with two horizontal-only elements and two vertical-only elements. It appears > that the requirement of directionality was to protect WPRO-FM 92.3 in Providence, > and a relatively new 92.5 in Waterbury, CT (maybe WATR-FM?). Then, just like > that, WHAV-FM just replaced those directional bays and went NDA 50 K at 350'. I didn't know that WHAV-FM had been on the air in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I remember discovering it on the air circa 1960, where I had found no station before and simply assumed that it was a new station. They blame simulcasting restrictions in part for the station's going dark in 1953. What simulcasting restrictions could there have been at that time? I thought total simulcasting was the rule in those days. It certainly was when I got my first FM radio in 1958. WHAV-FM was unusual in those days, having separate programs for most of the broadcast day. I think it simulcasted a program with AM late at night and all day Sunday, and maybe for some newscasts, but that was all. The only other station that had separate programs in those days was WBZ-FM. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Aug 23 00:47:58 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:47:58 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Well, I don't understand why I should be required to get an FM radio > with my next cellphone. If I want an FM radio, I'll get one. Chances are pretty good that you already have an FM radio in your next cellphone, and the wireless carrier sees more profit in having you listen to services that you[1] pay them for than in letting you listen to free radio. It's already well understood that consumers don't want to carry around multiple devices -- the standalone digital music player market will be dead in few years -- and so broadcasters are worried that you will get all of your auditory entertainment from the one device you[2] already have, your phone.[3] There's also a (spurious) argument about receiving EAS alerts (there's no reason the carriers could not be required to use their own technology to deliver EAS messages just as cablecos are). -GAWollman [1] Or someone, in any case -- the compensation may be coming from the audio provider rather than from you, or in the most likely scenario, in both directions, as the cell companies are an oligopoly and therefore have both pricing power and control over the platform. [2] And by "you" here I actually mean "women 25-54". [3] Particularly given the level of phone integration offered on many new cars. From dave@skywaves.net Mon Aug 23 02:33:51 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:33:51 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> > If I want an FM radio, I'll get one. The standalone radio market tanked about ten years ago. It's pretty hard to find a dedicated analog radio receiver any more. Radio Shack has a model or three, but that's about it. > Well, I don't understand why I should be required to get an FM radio with > my next cell phone. Many if not most cell phones are worldwide models and already include FM receivers due to regulatory requirements overseas. The FM tuners are just turned off here in the US. So whether or not you want to pay for it, you already have the capability to receive FM on your cell phone. The receiver chips are miniscule and consume micro-Watts. The primary problem would appear to be that the cell carriers don't want to pay royalties, because they would have to pass that cost along to their customers. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "A Joseph Ross" Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:09 PM To: Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > On 8/22/2010 2:01 AM, Judy S. wrote: > >> Today's Boston Sunday Globe editorial speaks out against mandating FM >> tuners in portable devices. >> >> As part of their point, they call FM "outdated technology." >> They also say: "Then there?s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, >> on its way out." >> >> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links > > Well, I don't understand why I should be required to get an FM radio with > my next cellphone. If I want an FM radio, I'll get one. > > -- > > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > > From bob.bosra@demattia.net Mon Aug 23 06:24:43 2010 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:24:43 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: > > There's also a (spurious) > argument about receiving EAS alerts (there's no reason the carriers > could not be required to use their own technology to deliver EAS > messages just as cablecos are). > > True. the cell carriers could do this - but the argument is less spurious when you consider the number of times the cell phone network has failed during emergencies. While storms can also take broadcast stations off the air, I can't recall when all of the stations in a particular area were all off at the same time. In additional to this, EAS is checked on a regular basis. It would not be practical to test a cell phone distribution system, as this would have to involve setting off people's phones. -Bob From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Aug 23 10:35:30 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:35:30 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: >> [I wrote:] >> There's also a (spurious) argument about receiving EAS alerts >> (there's no reason the carriers could not be required to use their >> own technology to deliver EAS messages just as cablecos are). > True. the cell carriers could do this - but the argument is less spurious > when > you consider the number of times the cell phone network has failed during > emergencies. Examples? -GAWollman From sid@wrko.com Mon Aug 23 10:44:03 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:44:03 -0600 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457697DB@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> >>Examples?<< One I can think of almost immediately is the NYC power blackout of 2003. Cell networks (those that were still operating on batteries or generators) rapidly overloaded to the point where no one got through. In a disaster involving widespread power outages coupled with damaged power distribution networks (like a nuclear attack), cell systems would be essentially non-existent. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From bob.bosra@demattia.net Mon Aug 23 10:46:09 2010 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:46:09 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Examples? (1) Hurricane Katrina (2005) (2) World Trade Center attack (2001) (3) Hurricane Andrew (1992) In these cases, there are three major contributing factors: (1) loss of cell towers themselves causes coverage holes (2) land and microwave links between the towers are lost (3) people both inside and outside the affected area start trying to call their friends and relatives causing the already diminshed-capacity system to overload. Bob From sid@wrko.com Mon Aug 23 08:46:26 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:46:26 -0600 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> >>Chances are pretty good that you already have an FM radio in your next cellphone, and the wireless carrier sees more profit in having you listen to services that you[1] pay them for than in letting you listen to free radio. It's already well understood that consumers don't want to carry around multiple devices -- the standalone digital music player market will be dead in few years -- and so broadcasters are worried that you will get all of your auditory entertainment from the one device you[2] already have, your phone.[3] There's also a (spurious) argument about receiving EAS alerts (there's no reason the carriers could not be required to use their own technology to deliver EAS messages just as cablecos are).<< The issue for me is that, once again, the broadcasters' main lobby is attempting to accomplish by government fiat what they claim their members can't accomplish on their own. They tried it once before by asking the government to mandate that HD radios be bundled with satellite radios, and deservedly got their heads handed to them. Let's hope regulators see through this one, too. It's really simple: Give me something fresh, relevant and compelling to listen to, and you've got me. Do nothing more than run on fumes, maintaining the status quo, and you've lost me. What part of this does the NAB not understand? Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From bob.bosra@demattia.net Mon Aug 23 13:40:30 2010 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: >> It's really simple: Give me something fresh, relevant and compelling to listen to, and you've got me. Do nothing more than run on fumes, maintaining the >> status quo, and you've lost me. What part of this does the NAB not understand? I've been looking to replace my current vehicle (ten years old, 240,000+ miles). I have an aftermarket HD receiver in my current vehicle. I'm trying to find where there is an option for an HD receiver in my new vehicle. If it's there, I can't find it. Very easy to get a Sirius/XM receiver though, in fact it's included as standard on almost everything. I suppose I could add an aftermarket to my new vehicle, but a lot of new vehicles now have the radio integrated into the trip computer and even into the navigation system. My Motorola phone,like most phones, has a USB plug on it. If I look at the specs for it, I can plug my phone into my computer. With a $30 piece of software from Motorola, I can drag and drop music and audio files from my PC to my phone and vice versa. Or can I? Actually, no. Though the phone and the software can do it, Verizon has locked the phone so that I have to email a picture I've taken to my PC using their service. Likewise, I have to purchase ringtones from Verizon rather than simply transfer one from my PC to my phone. OK, I found a hacker web site where someone has figured out how to remove the lock. I did it, and it works. As long as I don't go to Verizon and try to get my phone fixed now, I'm OK. If I replace my phone, I have to hope that someone has figured out how to hack the new phone. But I imagine most people do not possess the knowledge to be able to do this. My point is, a radio is not a standalone purchase any longer. It's coupled in with some larger product. That larger product is what the individual has to choose from. If the seller of that product has a vested interest in something that competes with the FM radio, consumers are going to find it difficult if not impossible to purchase what they want. -Bob From lspin@comcast.net Mon Aug 23 14:04:33 2010 From: lspin@comcast.net (Lou) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:04:33 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <002701cb42ed$a90d3ad0$fb27b070$@net> The thing that's still surprising to me is the lack of presence of HD radio in new AV Receivers. I have been in the market to replace my 24 year old Marantz (AM Stereo and all) receiver with something more updated, so I wanted to get something with HD Radio *and* Phono capability. There are plenty out there with "optional" HD with an extra module. How do they ever expect it to catch-on if it's still considered an option? -Lou -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Bob DeMattia Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:41 PM I've been looking to replace my current vehicle (ten years old, 240,000+ miles). I have an aftermarket HD receiver in my current vehicle. I'm trying to find where there is an option for an HD receiver in my new vehicle. If it's there, I can't find it. Very easy to get a Sirius/XM receiver though, in fact it's included as standard on almost everything. I suppose I could add an aftermarket to my new vehicle, but a lot of new vehicles now have the radio integrated into the trip computer and even into the navigation system. From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Aug 23 14:11:59 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:59 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <19570.47599.915154.317652@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Examples? > (1) Hurricane Katrina (2005) > (2) World Trade Center attack (2001) > (3) Hurricane Andrew (1992) Any relevant EAS (or EBS in 1992) alerts would have been sent well before cell service was lost in those events. > (3) people both inside and outside the affected area start trying to call > their friends and relatives causing the already diminshed-capacity > system to overload. There's already a priority-override system in the cell network to avoid just such a situation, part of the National Communications System. State and national public-safety officials can get a bit set on their mobile accounts which allows them to have priority access; the same mechanism is used to give priority access to 9-1-1. -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Aug 23 14:23:46 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:23:46 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <19570.48306.847439.194920@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > It's really simple: Give me something fresh, relevant and compelling > to listen to, and you've got me. Do nothing more than run on fumes, > maintaining the status quo, and you've lost me. What part of this > does the NAB not understand? You know what sort of people run the NAB. All they understand is that they have an "investment" in a medium, audio entertainment, that was once thought to be finite. As their business model falls apart, they naturally look to the government to prop them up, just as the banks and automakers did in 2008, and the copyright industry did in the mid-1990s. (TV got there first, with the Cable Act of 1992's reinstatement of must-carry and retrans consent. Most of the TV broadcasters who are ranting about the FCC trying to take "their" spectrum away would have gone out of business a decade ago were it not for the Cable Act.) -GAWollman From john@minutemancomm.com Mon Aug 23 14:47:35 2010 From: john@minutemancomm.com (John Mullaney) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:47:35 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <0F4EA184-B5EA-4A71-839E-1C8F631D52AD@minutemancomm.com> Bob all Fords and Mercury's are available with Factory HD now. It is an option how ever. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Bob DeMattia wrote: >>> It's really simple: Give me something fresh, relevant and compelling to > listen to, and you've got me. Do nothing more than run on fumes, > maintaining the >> status quo, and you've lost me. What part of this does > the NAB not understand? > > > I've been looking to replace my current vehicle (ten years old, 240,000+ > miles). I have an aftermarket > HD receiver in my current vehicle. I'm trying to find where there is an > option for an HD receiver in my > new vehicle. If it's there, I can't find it. Very easy to get a Sirius/XM > receiver though, in fact it's included > as standard on almost everything. I suppose I could add an aftermarket to > my new vehicle, but a lot > of new vehicles now have the radio integrated into the trip computer and > even into the navigation > system. > > My Motorola phone,like most phones, has a USB plug on it. If I look at the > specs for it, I can plug my > phone into my computer. With a $30 piece of software from Motorola, I can > drag and drop music and > audio files from my PC to my phone and vice versa. Or can I? > > Actually, no. Though the phone and the software can do it, Verizon has > locked the phone so that I have > to email a picture I've taken to my PC using their service. Likewise, I > have to purchase ringtones from > Verizon rather than simply transfer one from my PC to my phone. > > OK, I found a hacker web site where someone has figured out how to remove > the lock. I did it, and it > works. As long as I don't go to Verizon and try to get my phone fixed now, > I'm OK. If I replace my phone, > I have to hope that someone has figured out how to hack the new phone. > > But I imagine most people do not possess the knowledge to be able to do > this. > > My point is, a radio is not a standalone purchase any longer. It's coupled > in with some larger product. > That larger product is what the individual has to choose from. > > If the seller of that product has a vested interest in something that > competes with the FM radio, consumers > are going to find it difficult if not impossible to purchase what they want. > > > -Bob From driscollkevin@gmail.com Mon Aug 23 01:32:32 2010 From: driscollkevin@gmail.com (Kevin Driscoll) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:32:32 -0700 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: FM has been standard equipment on mobile phones for years. Unfortunately, service providers' custom software often does not provide an interface to the hardware. My sense is that the world-wide market values FM more highly than in North America. My last two Nokia handsets have an FM app that uses the headset cord as an antenna. This article from the India Times says that 65% of the mobile phones shipped in 2009 had FM radio: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6326442.cms In fact, it looks like the iPhone already has FM bundled in with a Broadcom chip also integrates WiFi and Bluetooth: http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=BCM4325 To be sure, the NAB/RIAA deal is shady and the regulation is overreaching but it would be nice to see more North American service providers enabling FM on the handsets they subsidize. Kevin On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> Well, I don't understand why I should be required to get an FM radio >> with my next cellphone. ?If I want an FM radio, I'll get one. > > Chances are pretty good that you already have an FM radio in your next > cellphone, and the wireless carrier sees more profit in having you > listen to services that you[1] pay them for than in letting you listen > to free radio. ?It's already well understood that consumers don't want > to carry around multiple devices -- the standalone digital music > player market will be dead in few years -- and so broadcasters are > worried that you will get all of your auditory entertainment from the > one device you[2] already have, your phone.[3] ?There's also a (spurious) > argument about receiving EAS alerts (there's no reason the carriers > could not be required to use their own technology to deliver EAS > messages just as cablecos are). > > -GAWollman > > [1] Or someone, in any case -- the compensation may be coming from the > audio provider rather than from you, or in the most likely scenario, > in both directions, as the cell companies are an oligopoly and > therefore have both pricing power and control over the platform. > > [2] And by "you" here I actually mean "women 25-54". > > [3] Particularly given the level of phone integration offered on many > new cars. > From tcoco@whav.net Mon Aug 23 11:21:31 2010 From: tcoco@whav.net (Tim Coco) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:21:31 -0400 Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag In-Reply-To: <8CD0EBDE7ADACA8-1354-4AAE@web-mmc-m04.sysops.aol.com> References: <0b4001cb4095$248e2030$6daa6090$@com> <8CD0EBDE7ADACA8-1354-4AAE@web-mmc-m04.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: In 1948, it was 20,000 watts "effective radiated power," but apparently fed with a Western Electric 10K transmitter. In 1959, it was again licensed for 20K, but I don't know what transmitter type was used. Yes, Silver Hill, of course. I've since written another article about the reasons for the collapse of WHAV-FM in the 1950s. WHAV-FM did run separate programming to feed Transit Radio's "music as you ride" network of commuter bus receivers. See http://loudcity.com/stations/the-wave-whav-net/files/show/issue_24.htm The network was challenged by bus riders who complained of being a captive audience. Unbelievably, the case went all of the way to the Supreme Court and the network won, but it was too late. Tim Coco President & General Manager WHAV -----Original Message----- From: lglavin@mail.com [mailto:lglavin@mail.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:32 PM To: gary@garysicecream.com; boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org Subject: Re: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag >-----Original Message--- >From: Gary's Ice Cream >To: Boston radio e-mail list >Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 2:26 pm >Subject: Technical History of WHAV online at Radio Mag >http://radiomagonline.com/departments/signoff/technical-history-whav/in >dex.h >tml My recollection is that when WHAV-FM returned to the air after its hiatus, it ran TWENTY thousand watts non-directional, at 350 feet HAAT. It was later that the station boosted its ERP to FIFTY thousand watts with a directional antenna on Silver HILL, not Silver HALL of course. It was an obvious directional antenna because every bay looked like a home rooftop TV antenna with two horizontal-only elements and two vertical-only elements. It appears that the requirement of directionality was to protect WPRO-FM 92.3 in Providence, and a relatively new 92.5 in Waterbury, CT (maybe WATR-FM?). Then, just like that, WHAV-FM just replaced those directional bays and went NDA 50 K at 350'. From lglavin@mail.com Mon Aug 23 13:49:18 2010 From: lglavin@mail.com (lglavin@mail.com) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:49:18 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8CD1102A4C39DB8-764-259F@web-mmc-d01.sysops.aol.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Judy S. >To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org >Sent: Sun, Aug 22, 2010 2:01 am >Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" >Today's Boston Sunday Globe editorial speaks out against mandating FM tuners in portable devices. As part of their point, they call FM "outdated technology." They also say: "Then there?s the fact that FM technology seems, frankly, on its way out." >http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/08/22/fm_radio_playing_a_sneaky_tune/?p1=Well_Opinion_links If you haven't clicked on this Globe story, or if you have but didn't read the 'COMMENTS' following it, you may want to do so. There are many pertinent and informed comments therein. Many mirror the statements made here (ok, they don't literally "mirror" them, sdrawkcab detnirp eb dluow yhet ro). From bob.bosra@demattia.net Mon Aug 23 16:14:47 2010 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:14:47 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: > To be sure, the NAB/RIAA deal is shady and the regulation is > overreaching but it would be nice to see more North American service > providers enabling FM on the handsets they subsidize. I suppose a more reasonable solution would be to prohibit cell phone providers / auto manufacturers / etc. from restricting any features designed in by the manufacturer. That way, Apple, Motorola, Nokia, et. all could decide what features they wanted to put in their products and consumers could choose the product they want without Verizon, AT&T, Ford, GM getting in the way. But laws that follow common sense seem to be a rarity these days. -Bob From map@mapinternet.com Mon Aug 23 19:05:10 2010 From: map@mapinternet.com (Mark Casey) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:05:10 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> Message-ID: <86162F0C31C34B94855A044A2490EA01@CASEYPC> It is really , really nice to have one device that replaces many devices. A good example is that the camera & camcorder are close to being replaced by the cellphone. And the screens are almost large enough to see some of the internet. Phones won't ever replace a PC or laptop, but they'll make inroads and I can imagine bye, bye standalone GPS in favor of a phone with a very good built-in GPS sometime in the very near future. If the cellphone has an FM radio already, that's fine, I'd use it. But to legislate it, is too much. If they want to require FM, why not add AM also. (Maybe the AM chip is too $$?) And, could you slip in TV audio, Shortwave(don't forget upper & lower sideband for the utility stations), and a police scanner also-- but they all could probably be added fairly easily. As far as FM radio outdated, that comment is out of touch with reality. FM stations might not be making as much money as in years past, and some may even go dark in years to come, and maybe digital service will grow, but analog FM will be here for many years. What are the royalties details and their costs? Mark Casey, K1MAP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" The primary problem would appear to be that the cell carriers don't want to pay royalties, because they would have to pass that cost along to their customers. -d From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Aug 23 19:13:33 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:13:33 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <86162F0C31C34B94855A044A2490EA01@CASEYPC> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> <86162F0C31C34B94855A044A2490EA01@CASEYPC> Message-ID: <19571.157.453766.289995@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > If the cellphone has an FM radio already, that's fine, I'd use it. But to > legislate it, is too much. If they want to require FM, why not add AM also. > (Maybe the AM chip is too $$?) No, the problem is that you can't get decent AM reception with the sort of RF that's flying about inside a cell phone, putting in the necessary shielding would make the phone much larger and heavier, and in any case there's nowhere to put a proper antenna. You could put a receiver chip in, but the results would inevitably be unsatisfactory, and the manufacturers feel (rightly) that the complaints would cost more than they could possibly gain from the (nonexistent) market for cell phones with built-in AM radios. -GAWollman From dave@skywaves.net Mon Aug 23 19:31:25 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:31:25 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <86162F0C31C34B94855A044A2490EA01@CASEYPC> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> <86162F0C31C34B94855A044A2490EA01@CASEYPC> Message-ID: <535697B0E4DD44DBB559EBCE65A0FA39@dave> > It is really , really nice to have one device that replaces many devices. Agreed. Most of the world-model cell phones and advanced devices, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, include FM tuners that are disabled by the carriers in the US. So it's not a big technical stretch to turn them on. The wireless carriers have resisted carrying the radio stations in part, I think, because the stations don't pay performance royalties. The carriers feared - correctly - that the record companies would come after them. The broadcasters are looking for a compromise here, I think. The stations will pay performance royalties in exchange for carriage on the portable devices. But before they agree to pay the performance royalties, they need to be assured that the portable devices will, in fact, carry them. So this doesn't seem to me to be as heinous an injection of the government into the market as some others around here have portrayed it. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mark Casey" Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 7:05 PM To: ; "Dave Doherty" Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > It is really , really nice to have one device that replaces many devices. > A > good example is that the camera & camcorder are close to being replaced by > the cellphone. And the screens are almost large enough to see some of the > internet. Phones won't ever replace a PC or laptop, but they'll make > inroads > and I can imagine bye, bye standalone GPS in favor of a phone with a very > good built-in GPS sometime in the very near future. > > If the cellphone has an FM radio already, that's fine, I'd use it. But to > legislate it, is too much. If they want to require FM, why not add AM > also. > (Maybe the AM chip is too $$?) > And, could you slip in TV audio, Shortwave(don't forget upper & lower > sideband for the utility stations), and a police scanner also-- but > they all could probably be added fairly easily. > > As far as FM radio outdated, that comment is out of touch with reality. FM > stations might not be making as much money as in years past, and some may > even go dark in years to come, and maybe digital service will grow, but > analog FM will be here for many years. > > What are the royalties details and their costs? > > Mark Casey, K1MAP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Doherty" > > The primary problem would appear to be that the cell carriers don't want > to > pay royalties, because they would have to pass that cost along to their > customers. > > -d > > > From kc1ih@mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:43:50 2010 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:43:50 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <535697B0E4DD44DBB559EBCE65A0FA39@dave> References: <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave> <535697B0E4DD44DBB559EBCE65A0FA39@dave> Message-ID: <0L7M00D6XSI5U680@asmtp021.mac.com> At 07:31 PM 8/23/2010, Dave Doherty wrote: >The wireless carriers have resisted carrying the radio stations in >part, I think, because the stations don't pay performance royalties. >The carriers feared - correctly - that the record companies would >come after them. But they do (or at least can) carry radio stations. I have an app on my iPhone called Pocket Radio that allows it to get most any station that streams. Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From brscomm@yahoo.com Mon Aug 23 19:55:46 2010 From: brscomm@yahoo.com (Bill Smith) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Cellular networks very rarely fail completely and if they do fail, it's usually well into a storm and only a site or two at a time. It's actually amazing at the number of people that suddenly need to call someone when the weather gets bad stressing system capacity. As for a variant of EAS, it could easily be implemented with SMS which handshakes unlike broadcast. Personally, I use the?NWS alert system, but I'm a radio nut and don't mind carrying multiple devices and getting laughed at... Bill ________________________________ From: Bob DeMattia To: boston Radio Interest Sent: Mon, August 23, 2010 5:24:43 AM Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > There's also a (spurious) > argument about receiving EAS alerts (there's no reason the carriers > could not be required to use their own technology to deliver EAS > messages just as cablecos are). > > True. the cell carriers could do this - but the argument is less spurious when you consider the number of times the cell phone network has failed during emergencies.? While storms can also take broadcast stations off the air, I can't recall when all of the stations in a particular area were all off at the same time. In additional to this, EAS is checked on a regular basis.? It would not be practical to test a cell phone distribution system, as this would have to involve setting off people's phones. -Bob From dave@skywaves.net Mon Aug 23 22:43:31 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:43:31 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <0L7M00D6XSI5U680@asmtp021.mac.com> References: <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><11B51E7FFCEC4A479CAFBC4DBC2B2E6A@dave><535697B0E4DD44DBB559EBCE65A0FA39@dave> <0L7M00D6XSI5U680@asmtp021.mac.com> Message-ID: <1302957AA87E455482F0D1E372D2F8EB@dave> Absolutely right, Larry, but broadcasters *do* pay performance royalties on the streams that the devices connect to. They just don't pay them on the OTA broadcasts that would be picked up by receivers in the devices. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry Weil" Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:43 PM To: Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > At 07:31 PM 8/23/2010, Dave Doherty wrote: > >>The wireless carriers have resisted carrying the radio stations in part, I >>think, because the stations don't pay performance royalties. The carriers >>feared - correctly - that the record companies would come after them. > > But they do (or at least can) carry radio stations. I have an app on my > iPhone called Pocket Radio that allows it to get most any station that > streams. > > > Larry Weil > Lake Wobegone, NH > > From john@minutemancomm.com Mon Aug 23 22:44:20 2010 From: john@minutemancomm.com (John Mullaney) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:20 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob, In example number (1) most of the radio were knocked off the air and the others ran out of diesel fuel. Quite a few got back on from remote locations but days later. TV did a better job but they had a lot of problems too. Thing is how do you recharge your phone anyways. Example(2) EAS was never activated (3) I have no data The thing is today's EAS system is a joke. And even if you could fix it people just don't listen to the radio like they used too. A massive cellular regional text messaging blast would be of more use today to spread messages quickly. If it was designed to stagger messages you'd think you could even handle the load issues. In massive disasters like Katrina almost everything goes down eventually due to a loss of power. If the infrastructure fails to that degree it's almost impossible to get diesel fuel pumped from tanks and delivered with hospitals. Police and Fire getting the first deliveries. With today's loads and today's EPA regulations on tanks most folks go through there supply of fuel in 24hrs-46hrs. Anyways isn't FM radio what the NAB wants to add. I don't think there intent is EAS. I do have the iPod FM tuner with RDS. I use to like it cause folks never realized you could be listening to FM on planes with your IPod. But you can.... Not that I would. ;) John -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Bob DeMattia Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:46 AM To: boston Radio Interest Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Examples? (1) Hurricane Katrina (2005) (2) World Trade Center attack (2001) (3) Hurricane Andrew (1992) In these cases, there are three major contributing factors: (1) loss of cell towers themselves causes coverage holes (2) land and microwave links between the towers are lost (3) people both inside and outside the affected area start trying to call their friends and relatives causing the already diminshed-capacity system to overload. Bob No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3089 - Release Date: 08/23/10 02:35:00 From dave@skywaves.net Mon Aug 23 23:22:25 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:22:25 -0400 Subject: Emergency Preparedness [ was Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" ] In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <91106CC99C0D44C1A3BBB802F278F363@dave> Hi John- It continues to amaze me that nobody thought to send out an EAS alert on 9/11. So many people responded in thoughtful and considered ways, given the magnitude of the event. One thing that comes to mind is the PATH Train folks who stopped the Exchange Place outbounds immediately and sent the ones that were already in the tunnel straight through the WTC loop and back without stopping. That must have PO'd the passengers until they got to street level in NJ. Quick and admirable thinking, made possible by good communications. 9/11 and Katrina resulted in a big increase in aux sites for broadcasters, particularly in major markets. It seems like hardly a week goes by without at least one new aux site being licensed someplace. On balance, I think it is easier and more secure to have a main site backed up by one or two aux sites than to maintain a large array of low power cellular sites, even though the loss of a single cell site or a small group of cell sites is relatively less costly to the coverage. I can cut a deal with a couple of fuel suppliers to deliver off-road diesel to two or three sites a lot easier than a hundred cell sites. And I might even be able to provide two different power mains suppliers to a big site. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "John Mullaney" Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:44 PM To: "'Bob DeMattia'" ; "'boston Radio Interest'" Subject: RE: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > Hi Bob, > > In example number (1) most of the radio were knocked off the air and the > others ran out of diesel fuel. Quite a few got back on from remote > locations > but days later. TV did a better job but they had a lot of problems too. > Thing is how do you recharge your phone anyways. > > Example(2) EAS was never activated > > (3) I have no data > > The thing is today's EAS system is a joke. And even if you could fix it > people just don't listen to the radio like they used too. A massive > cellular > regional text messaging blast would be of more use today to spread > messages > quickly. If it was designed to stagger messages you'd think you could even > handle the load issues. > > In massive disasters like Katrina almost everything goes down eventually > due > to a loss of power. If the infrastructure fails to that degree it's almost > impossible to get diesel fuel pumped from tanks and delivered with > hospitals. Police and Fire getting the first deliveries. With today's > loads > and today's EPA regulations on tanks most folks go through there supply of > fuel in 24hrs-46hrs. > > Anyways isn't FM radio what the NAB wants to add. I don't think there > intent > is EAS. > > I do have the iPod FM tuner with RDS. I use to like it cause folks never > realized you could be listening to FM on planes with your IPod. But you > can.... Not that I would. ;) > > John From nostaticatall@charter.net Mon Aug 23 23:57:32 2010 From: nostaticatall@charter.net (Dave Tomm) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:32 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> Last winter I was able to call my in-laws on their cellphones during the big blizzard that hit Philadelphia. During the height of the storm, the connection was still crystal clear. Meanwhile IIRC, there were several radio stations in that region that were knocked off the air. Seems to me in that particular instance, cellular was a better option that OTA radio.... -Dave On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Bill Smith wrote: > Cellular networks very rarely fail completely and if they do fail, > it's usually > well into a storm and only a site or two at a time. It's actually > amazing at the > number of people that suddenly need to call someone when the weather > gets bad > stressing system capacity. As for a variant of EAS, it could easily be > implemented with SMS which handshakes unlike broadcast. > > Personally, I use the NWS alert system, but I'm a radio nut and > don't mind From HeritageRadio@msn.com Tue Aug 24 04:16:00 2010 From: HeritageRadio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:16:00 -0400 Subject: Ken Meyer Message-ID: Ken told me it is OK to give his contact information out. His work E-Mail is: Ken.Meyer@cityofboston.gov Notice there is a dot between Ken and Meyer. Write to me for other information. Tom Heathwood From sid@wrko.com Tue Aug 24 07:27:26 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:27:26 -0400 Subject: Emergency Preparedness [ was Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" ] In-Reply-To: <91106CC99C0D44C1A3BBB802F278F363@dave> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><19570.34610.579492.314630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <91106CC99C0D44C1A3BBB802F278F363@dave> Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55458249FD@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> >>It continues to amaze me that nobody thought to send out an EAS alert on 9/11.<< It shouldn't amaze anyone. EAS is not designed to be used when the threat is unknown, and on that morning hard facts about what was happening were all too few. The attacks were limited to two very small geographic areas, and in the absence of any indications of attacks on a broader scale there would have been no sense sending out alerts under those conditions. The only predictable result of doing so would have been widespread panic and a serious erosion of whatever public trust there is in the system. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Aug 24 08:22:27 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?RG91ZyBEcm93bg==?=) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:22:27 -0400 Subject: Because I don't know whom to ask about this . . . Message-ID: <20100824082227.zv473iyjli58g0oo@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Question for any and all: Is there an AM-FM radio out there that has the capacity for the owner to time-set and record programs and play them later, such as one can do with a television DVD player or satellite DVR? I've never seen such a creature, but there have been plenty of times when I wished I owned one. -Doug From dave@skywaves.net Tue Aug 24 09:18:48 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:18:48 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> Message-ID: <276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> It's easier for me as a broadcaster to maintain a couple of centralized sites. The cellular carriers are used to maintaining thousands of distributed sites. I think the point is not that one service is intrinsically better than the other, but that we need layers of capabilities of all sorts. Then almost no matter what the insult, some communications can get through. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "Dave Tomm" Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:57 PM To: "Bill Smith" Cc: Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > Last winter I was able to call my in-laws on their cellphones during the > big blizzard that hit Philadelphia. During the height of the storm, the > connection was still crystal clear. Meanwhile IIRC, there were several > radio stations in that region that were knocked off the air. Seems to me > in that particular instance, cellular was a better option that OTA > radio.... > > -Dave > From raccoonradio@mail.com Tue Aug 24 10:51:55 2010 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (raccoonradio@mail.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:51:55 -0400 Subject: Because I don't know whom to ask about this . . . In-Reply-To: <20100824082227.zv473iyjli58g0oo@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100824082227.zv473iyjli58g0oo@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <8CD11B3076E348B-1EE4-8D1@web-mmc-d10.sysops.aol.com> The C. Crane catalog has one, I believe. One other option is to hook your receiver up to your comp. and use software like Audacity (free) or Audio Record Wizard (not free). They have timers. C Crane: http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/cc-witness.aspx >>"...and it has a timer!" From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Tue Aug 24 11:19:32 2010 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:19:32 -0400 Subject: Because I don't know whom to ask about this . . . References: <20100824082227.zv473iyjli58g0oo@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <8CD11B3076E348B-1EE4-8D1@web-mmc-d10.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <74FFA26D9F23421F9E40F4D27300F304@YOURbcbbe822ed> Looks like there's another option with a timer. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5985903&SRCCODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Because I don't know whom to ask about this . . . The C. Crane catalog has one, I believe. One other option is to hook your receiver up to your comp. and use software like Audacity (free) or Audio Record Wizard (not free). They have timers. C Crane: http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/cc-witness.aspx >>"...and it has a timer!" From TVNETDUDE@aol.com Tue Aug 24 13:38:52 2010 From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com (TVNETDUDE@aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:52 EDT Subject: Emergency Preparedness [ was Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated Message-ID: <56a7d.71cf4fbb.39a55dac@aol.com> Would it have made that much difference? Most of the communications antennas were on the WTC towers. If you had ever been up there you would have seen it resembled a lawn of antennas up there. When they knock out your communications system it doesn't make too much difference how many alerts you send out. I can tell you the people with any sort of radios had crowds around them when no one's cell phones worked. Mike In a message dated 8/24/2010 10:54:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes: >>It continues to amaze me that nobody thought to send out an EAS alert on 9/11. So many people responded in thoughtful and considered ways, given the magnitude of the event.<<< From TVNETDUDE@aol.com Tue Aug 24 13:42:02 2010 From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com (TVNETDUDE@aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:42:02 EDT Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 14, Issue 217 Message-ID: <56e88.372ed8ce.39a55e6a@aol.com> Wonder how terrestrial radio would be picked up directly on a cellphone with a fractal microwave antenna array? It doesn't sound too efficient to me. How does it work overseas? Anyone know? Mike In a message dated 8/24/2010 10:54:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes: >>Most of the world-model cell phones and advanced devices, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, include FM tuners that are disabled by the carriers in the US. So it's not a big technical stretch to turn them on.<<< From TVNETDUDE@aol.com Tue Aug 24 13:45:48 2010 From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com (TVNETDUDE@aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:45:48 EDT Subject: RESEND Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Message-ID: <57437.6fbbd1fc.39a55f4c@aol.com> Wonder how terrestrial radio would be picked up directly on a cellphone with a fractal microwave antenna array? It doesn't sound too efficient to me. How does it work overseas? Anyone know? Mike In a message dated 8/24/2010 10:54:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes: >>Most of the world-model cell phones and advanced devices, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, include FM tuners that are disabled by the carriers in the US. So it's not a big technical stretch to turn them on.<<< From jjlehmann@comcast.net Tue Aug 24 13:51:01 2010 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0400 Subject: RESEND Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <57437.6fbbd1fc.39a55f4c@aol.com> References: <57437.6fbbd1fc.39a55f4c@aol.com> Message-ID: <001e01cb43b4$ea979cd0$bfc6d670$@net> > Wonder how terrestrial radio would be picked up directly on a cellphone > with a fractal microwave antenna array? It doesn't sound too efficient > to me. Usually cell phones with built in FM radios only work when you have headphones attached, to use the wires as the antenna. Ipods with FM tuners are like this as well. Jeff Lehmann From brscomm@yahoo.com Tue Aug 24 16:03:38 2010 From: brscomm@yahoo.com (Bill Smith) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> <276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> Message-ID: <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I understand a few TV stations are running multiple digital transmitters to fill holes, could this be a first step to broadcasters moving to a cellular model? get rid of those million+ dollar towers and go on existing low altitude sites? ________________________________ From: Dave Doherty To: Dave Tomm ; Bill Smith Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 8:18:48 AM Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" It's easier for me as a broadcaster to maintain a couple of centralized sites.? The cellular carriers are used to maintaining thousands of distributed sites. I think the point is not that one service is intrinsically better than the other, but that we need layers of capabilities of all sorts. Then almost no matter what the insult, some communications can get through. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "Dave Tomm" Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:57 PM To: "Bill Smith" Cc: Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > Last winter I was able to call my in-laws on their cellphones during? the big >blizzard that hit Philadelphia.? During the height of the? storm, the connection >was still crystal clear.? Meanwhile IIRC, there? were several radio stations in >that region that were knocked off the? air.? Seems to me in that particular >instance, cellular was a better? option that OTA radio.... > > -Dave > From dave@skywaves.net Tue Aug 24 19:14:22 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:14:22 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com><565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net><276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1977AF82E1B142F9841E1C59FDA263C2@dave> Could be, Bill. I don't know what the TV guys are doing in that regard, although I have heard some of the same stuff you have. Cellular radio broadcasting cannot be done analog on any large scale at this time, at least not economically. Under the current FCC rules, you can use on-channel boosters, but they have to be located within the nominally protected coverage contour of a full power station, they must be well synchronized so the center frequencies are precisely the same, and they have to maintain a great degree of control over modulation - BE says their studies indicate that a variance of more than 0.1 db in modulation starts to have noticeable effects! All of this means digital STLs, synchronization via GPS receiver, and of course careful attention to - and control over - propagation delays. With an all-digital transmission format, it is much easier, at least in theory. We would have to blow off the maybe six or seven hundred million analog radios said to be in service in this country in favor of the less than three million digital ones sold so far. That's not a trade the industry - or the FCC - is willing to make any time soon. But your point is valid. Eventually, we will be able to move to an all-digital transmission format, and radio broadcasting could take on a combination model of a central transmitter with a number of outlying low power cells in problem areas, all fed and controlled via the Internet. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a workable economic model that would have radio go into a purely cellular distribution method that is solely dedicated to radio. More likely, I think, is a logical evolution from where we are today. The initial tests with WiMax as a transmission medium for streams were promising, but there are problems with mobile reception. The Internet moves packets of data, not continuous streams of it. Email, websites, and even video are much more tolerant of momentary disruptions than pure audio streams. Eventually, the problems will probably be overcome for the most part. Once the WiMax infrastructure is built out, then car "radios" in metro areas should have access to WiMax streams most of the time. But in rural areas and other places where cell phone service is dicey today, it is unlikely that WiMax will be much more usable. So that leaves us with radio stations streaming, but also still transmitting OTA signals. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Smith" Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:03 PM To: Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > I understand a few TV stations are running multiple digital transmitters > to fill > holes, could this be a first step to broadcasters moving to a cellular > model? > get rid of those million+ dollar towers and go on existing low altitude > sites? > > > From kc1ih@mac.com Tue Aug 24 22:08:01 2010 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:08:01 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> <276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 1:03 PM -0700 8/24/10, Bill Smith wrote: >I understand a few TV stations are running multiple digital >transmitters to fill holes, could this be a first step to >broadcasters moving to a cellular model? get rid of those million+ >dollar towers and go on existing low altitude sites? I don't know where you heard this, but I really doubt it. This would just create a large interference pattern making the signal basically useless. The way cell phones work is that neighboring towers use different frequencies so as to not interfere with each other, with 6 MHz wide TV signals this would not be at all practical. And it would be impossible to keep signals in phase over 6 MHz if neighboring signals were on the same channel. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 24 23:27:26 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:27:26 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com> <19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <486554.91561.qm@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <565F04D1-E655-4F67-BD39-915558AB6A58@charter.net> <276961520D7E4BA8BB8174E945D68475@dave> <753775.96304.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <19572.36254.525278.908130@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > At 1:03 PM -0700 8/24/10, Bill Smith wrote: >> I understand a few TV stations are running multiple digital >> transmitters to fill holes, could this be a first step to >> broadcasters moving to a cellular model? get rid of those million+ >> dollar towers and go on existing low altitude sites? > I don't know where you heard this, but I really doubt it. It is true. The rest-of-the-world digital TV systems all use OFDM and inherently benefit from "single-frequency networks". A few years ago, some smart people figured out how to make it work with ATSC, and so there are a number of U.S. stations using "distributed transmission systems" as well. In the U.S. regulatory regime, the total coverage area of a DTS must be enclosed by the station's allotment, so in practice it looks rather more like traditional NTSC boosters than a European SFN. (The SFN concept was developed first in Europe; every European country has at least one national television broadcaster, so it makes good sense to allocate its spectrum nationwide. England, for example, has five national TV services, each of which has multiple national program services; the situation is more complicated in the rest of the UK.) -GAWollman From dave@skywaves.net Tue Aug 24 23:31:07 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:31:07 -0400 Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 14, Issue 217 In-Reply-To: <56e88.372ed8ce.39a55e6a@aol.com> References: <56e88.372ed8ce.39a55e6a@aol.com> Message-ID: Any device capable of providing a continuous stream of audio must provide a way of listening to it - generally, a wired connection to earbuds, in which case the wire provides the antenna. Some very interesting research has been published recently on organic models for antennas that are very small in relation to the wavelength being received, for those cases in which the device would allow for wireless stereo communication to two ear devices simultaneously and eliminate the earbud wire antenna. -d From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:42 PM To: boston-radio-interest@tsornin.BostonRadio.org ; dave@skywaves.net Subject: Re: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 14, Issue 217 Wonder how terrestrial radio would be picked up directly on a cellphone with a fractal microwave antenna array? It doesn't sound too efficient to me. How does it work overseas? Anyone know? From HeritageRadio@msn.com Wed Aug 25 01:34:48 2010 From: HeritageRadio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:34:48 -0400 Subject: Car Radio Problems In-Reply-To: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <23791843.1282456912530.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4C71E658.1060609@attorneyross.com><19569.64894.905229.685515@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC55457694E9@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: Can anyone recommend an ethical car radio repair shop to fix (replace) a broken click-on/off power switch on my GM car radio. Would prefer the Newton area, but would travel to someone who will not charge an arm and a leg for the job. Any suggestions? Thanks - Tom Heathwood From TVNETDUDE@aol.com Wed Aug 25 13:00:18 2010 From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com (TVNETDUDE@aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:18 EDT Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Message-ID: <101187.25f1508a.39a6a622@aol.com> IF, the US adopted COFDM rather than 8-VSB, like the rest of the world; this would not be a problem. The FCC is busy trying to fix this problem by taking all of the bandwidth away from TV stations now and turning it over to wireless companies. Mike - K1MH In a message dated 8/25/2010 12:01:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes: >>I don't know where you heard this, but I really doubt it. This would just create a large interference pattern making the signal basically useless. The way cell phones work is that neighboring towers use different frequencies so as to not interfere with each other, with 6 MHz wide TV signals this would not be at all practical. And it would be impossible to keep signals in phase over 6 MHz if neighboring signals were on the same channel.<<< From friedbagels@gmail.com Sun Aug 29 13:02:41 2010 From: friedbagels@gmail.com (Aaron Read) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:02:41 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" Message-ID: John, that's only true in some marketer's head...it's not true in reality, as Tom Ray (a proponent of HD Radio, mind you) rather viciously wrote about in Radio World recently: http://rwonline.com/article/104712 "Just for fun, I called Ford corporate HQ in Detroit, and talked to many nice people. And these many nice people all told me I was their first HD Radio call, ever. And none of them could answer my question as to the availability of a factory-installed HD Radio that might just fit into the dashboard of my new Escape . (snip) I was then passed around to department managers in Customer Service, Research, PR and Engineering. No one could assist me without pointing me to www.hdradio.com. I informed them that this website is useless. It tells me things I already know, and nothing about radio availability from Ford. I just went in circles." Tom also reports that HD Radio supposedly will be an option available with the $1000 navigation package on SOME Ford models in 2011. Maybe. I am a proponent of HD Radio myself, but even I readily admit that unless the industry gets HD Radios as standard equipment into a variety of OEM cars...and VERY soon...then it's doomed as a technology. OEM's are going out of their way to integrate their radios with the climate control, steering-wheel control, and navigation features. And making them part of very non-standard physical mounts. Pretty soon the aftermarket car stereo industry won't exist in any meanful way anymore, so that route will be cut off. Radio listening in the home or office was always second-banana to listening in the car...and the car manufacturers have fought HD Radio tooth and nail because XM/Sirius (and now Microsoft with Sync) have paid handsomely for them to do so. Car OEM's have whined for years about the four-year design/launch cycle for new vehicles and that's why they can't just drop new radios in immediately. Well, HD Radio has been around for seven years, so why the hell haven't we had at least two or three years of HD Radios as standard equipment? Or at least optional equipment? -- -- ----------------------------------------- Aaron Read friedbagels@gmail.com WEOS 89.7FM General Manager (315) 781-3811 John Mullaney john@minutemancomm.com Mon Aug 23 14:47:35 EDT 2010 Bob all Fords and Mercury's are available with Factory HD now. It is an option how ever. From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Sun Aug 29 13:15:17 2010 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:15:17 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: Message-ID: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> From: "Aaron Read" > Well, HD Radio > has been around for seven years, so why the hell haven't we had at > least two or three years of HD Radios as standard equipment? Or at > least optional equipment? When did stereo start? How long did it take before it was standard equipment? From gary@garysicecream.com Sun Aug 29 20:44:11 2010 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:44:11 -0400 Subject: Congrats to David Alan Boucher Message-ID: <034a01cb47dc$76e7a1a0$64b6e4e0$@com> For passing his Technician class Amateur Radio test today. Welcome to the hobby David. -Gary Francis, W1GFF From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Aug 29 21:46:34 2010 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:46:34 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> Message-ID: <4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> On 8/29/2010 1:15 PM, Don wrote: > > When did stereo start? > > How long did it take before it was standard equipment? Well, FM stereo was first authorized in 1961, and WCRB was broadcasting in it almost immediately. It wasn't until sometime in the 1970s that FM began to be standard equipment in cars. My datum point is that my 1970 Dodge Dart still had AM only radio, until I got an under-dash FM converter. My next car was my parents' 1977 Oldsmobile, which had AM-FM radio. I believe it was sometime in the 1980s before stereo began to appear in cars. My next car was a 1991 Accord, which had stereo and a cassette player. Cassettes first came out in the late 60s or early 70s, but it took at least to the 1980s to appear in cars. CDs took less time. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Aug 29 22:09:11 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:09:11 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <19579.4807.381109.27542@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Well, FM stereo was first authorized in 1961, and WCRB was broadcasting > in it almost immediately. It wasn't until sometime in the 1970s that FM > began to be standard equipment in cars. For many makes, the default factory radio din't start supporting FM until the mid-1980s. (I know this because my parents absolutely refused to pay extra for FM, so we didn't have factory FM in the car until 1987. My father did buy a car with no factory radio and install an aftermarket one, which of course did have FM, in 1986.) -GAWollman From irw@well.com Sun Aug 29 22:18:46 2010 From: irw@well.com (Blaine Thompson) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <19579.4807.381109.27542@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> <19579.4807.381109.27542@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Garrett Wollman wrote: > (I know this because my parents absolutely refused to pay extra for FM, > so we didn't have factory FM in the car until 1987. My father did buy a > car with no factory radio and install an aftermarket one, which of > course did have FM, in 1986.) (not to compete with our esteemed moderator): My parents bought a new car in 1982 with no factory radio. I somehow (at the narrowminded age of seven) managed to persuade them to purchase an AM/FM/Audio Cassette car radio. I'm sure that persuasion came back to haunt me later, as I did buy my parents last car from them, and did notice (factory model car radio) that two of the preset buttons were missing. - Blaine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blaine Thompson Indiana RadioWatch irw@well.com http://www.indianaradio.net AOL Instant Messenger: indianaradio5 From dboucher@greatermediaboston.com Sun Aug 29 22:13:54 2010 From: dboucher@greatermediaboston.com (D A Boucher) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:13:54 -0400 Subject: Congrats to David Alan Boucher References: <034a01cb47dc$76e7a1a0$64b6e4e0$@com> Message-ID: Had to tell everyone, huh Gary? LOL! Nice meeting up with you at the Boxboro Ham Show. How many other radio people are hams? Anyone else on this list? ;-) 73's! David (awaiting his call sign.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary's Ice Cream" > For passing his Technician class Amateur Radio test today. Welcome to the > hobby David. > > > > -Gary Francis, > > W1GFF > > > From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Aug 29 22:25:52 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:25:52 +0000 Subject: Congrats to David Alan Boucher In-Reply-To: References: <034a01cb47dc$76e7a1a0$64b6e4e0$@com> Message-ID: <1795166200-1283135152-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1487539159-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Congrats DAB Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: "D A Boucher" Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:13:54 To: Gary's Ice Cream Cc: B-R-I Subject: Re: Congrats to David Alan Boucher Had to tell everyone, huh Gary? LOL! Nice meeting up with you at the Boxboro Ham Show. How many other radio people are hams? Anyone else on this list? ;-) 73's! David (awaiting his call sign.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary's Ice Cream" > For passing his Technician class Amateur Radio test today. Welcome to the > hobby David. > > > > -Gary Francis, > > W1GFF > > > From kc1ih@mac.com Sun Aug 29 22:48:58 2010 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:48:58 -0400 Subject: Congrats to David Alan Boucher In-Reply-To: References: <034a01cb47dc$76e7a1a0$64b6e4e0$@com> Message-ID: <000601cb47ed$ea063e10$be12ba30$@com> Me! 73 de KC1IH > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of D A Boucher > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:14 PM > To: Gary's Ice Cream > Cc: B-R-I > Subject: Re: Congrats to David Alan Boucher > > > Had to tell everyone, huh Gary? LOL! > > Nice meeting up with you at the Boxboro Ham Show. > > How many other radio people are hams? > > Anyone else on this list? > > ;-) > > 73's! > > David > (awaiting his call sign.) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary's Ice Cream" > > > > For passing his Technician class Amateur Radio test today. Welcome > to the > > hobby David. > > > > > > > > -Gary Francis, > > > > W1GFF > > > > > > From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Mon Aug 30 00:49:13 2010 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:49:13 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <594C4E7C86854B6D8BD2BA3C9059CEFC@s20035> From: "A Joseph Ross" > My datum point is that my 1970 Dodge Dart still had AM only radio, until I > got an under-dash FM converter. My next car was my parents' 1977 > Oldsmobile, which had AM-FM radio. I believe it was sometime in the 1980s > before stereo began to appear in cars. My next car was a 1991 Accord, > which had stereo and a cassette player. Cassettes first came out in the > late 60s or early 70s, but it took at least to the 1980s to appear in > cars. My first new car was in 1980 Checkvrolet....and it still only came with AM. My next new car in 1985 Volkswagon.....had FM as a stock item...but it wasn't stereo. From dave@skywaves.net Mon Aug 30 00:38:39 2010 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:38:39 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> Message-ID: <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> Hi, Don- I worked for GE Broadcasting in Schenectady in the late 1960s. The story I heard back in the day was that GE had tested the FM stereo system under an STA at WGFM as early as the late 1950s, and when it was approved by the FCC in the early 1960s, they signed it on officially the same day. That would have been consistent with the history of the GE stations in Schenectady as being on the bleeding edge - WGY claimed to be the first 50kW AM station in the world, and WRGB-TV was an industry leader in TV broadcasting. FM was an option then. Around 1970, I bought a hot aftermarket AM / FM under-dash unit that got about 50 FM stations at my home in Glenmont (I recall that it was 56, but it was a long time ago). About half showed a stereo pilot strong enough to light the light. In those days, there were a lot of new stations going on the air, and a lot of excitement in the radio tech community about newly sensitive solid-state tuners and receivers that could pick up an FM signal as weak as a few uV/m, but there was still no good economic model to pay for the service. In 1970-1972, I worked for an AM/FM station in upstate NY. The FM simulcast the AM and ran a basically homebrew SCA background music service on 67kHz using Marti SCA receivers and outdoor antennas. The SCA paid the power bill for the FM transmitter, so it didn't hurt to run the FM, and that was about as good as it got from the standpoint of the owner. FM Stereo? Hell no, if it cost five bucks. IMO, the major thing that hurt the adoption of FM Stereo was that the system was a mix of an AM pilot at 19kHz and AM sidebands centered on 38kHz impressed on an FM carrier. It worked OK for static receivers with outdoor antennas and little or no multipath, but it was - and is - fundamentally dreadful for mobile reception. If you want to see a great historical model of consumer market adoption of a new tech standard, take a look at the history of color TV broadcasting. It took about 30 years from the FCC decision adopting NTSC as the color standard to achieve 100% network color broadcasts and 50% color TV set sales. The recent switch from NTSC to digital transmission was government-mandated, with subsidies to consumers to buy new TV sets or convertors. It took about 15 years from the first proposals to the final analog shutdown. Contrast that with today's consumers. While broadcast standards have historically taken decades to evolve, today's iPhone is yesterday's BlackBerry and tomorrow's Droid. In a month or two, today's hoo-hah will be yesterday's Droid. The point is that all stations - AM / FM / TV - need to have a voice in the digital delivery world. I really don't care what device you use to listen to my stations, I want you to be able to hear them. That means we need digital transmission standards, carrier-neutral transmission, and devices that adhere to, or at least accept, those standards. -d -------------------------------------------------- From: "Don" Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 1:15 PM To: "B-R-I" Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > From: "Aaron Read" > >> Well, HD Radio >> has been around for seven years, so why the hell haven't we had at >> least two or three years of HD Radios as standard equipment? Or at >> least optional equipment? > > > When did stereo start? > > How long did it take before it was standard equipment? > > > From rickkelly@gmail.com Mon Aug 30 06:15:10 2010 From: rickkelly@gmail.com (Rick Kelly) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:15:10 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dave Doherty wrote: > IMO, the major thing that hurt the adoption of FM Stereo was that the system > was a mix of an AM pilot at 19kHz and AM sidebands centered on 38kHz > impressed on an FM carrier. It worked OK for static receivers with outdoor > antennas and little or no multipath, but it was - and is - fundamentally > dreadful for mobile reception. And it's still pretty dreadful, IMO, even with circular polarization. Back in the early eighties, car radio manufacturers began using the automatic "stereo blend" feature - which crops off highs and reduces stereo separation when signal quality degrades. For most folks, it probably doesn't matter - but it annoys the heck out of me. -Rick Kelly northeastairchecks.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Aug 30 23:04:23 2010 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:04:23 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> Message-ID: <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> On 8/30/2010 12:38 AM, Dave Doherty wrote: > > The point is that all stations - AM / FM / TV - need to have a voice > in the digital delivery world. I really don't care what device you use > to listen to my stations, I want you to be able to hear them. That > means we need digital transmission standards, carrier-neutral > transmission, and devices that adhere to, or at least accept, those > standards. > I don't see why. For all I can tell, digital transmission, at least over the air, is far more subject to interference than analog, making many people's reception, since the government-forced changeover, much more problematic, even nonexistent. I first saw color TV in the Museum of Science in 1955 or 56. The picture quality was very bad, and the same was true of every color set I saw for the next several years (usually in TV stores). Black and white pictures on early color sets had a greenish tint and were inferior to pictures on a B&W set. But the acceptance of color depended on the market, not on a government mandate. As color TVs got better, and the price came down, more and more people started to buy them. Their market penetration was natural as the product got better. Digital radio and TV should also have to compete and win customers by offering an attractive product. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From HeritageRadio@msn.com Tue Aug 31 04:43:51 2010 From: HeritageRadio@msn.com (Thomas Heathwood) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:43:51 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio Message-ID: For those who remember "Big Brother" Bob Emery from his many years at WBZ-TV, you might be interested in hearing what he sounded like in 1926 when he was recorded by BRUNSWICK Records doing a recreation of his program on WEEI. It's on my Heritage Radio Theatre this week - at: VintageRadioPlace.com./broadcast streaming audio 24/7 Tom Heathwood From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Aug 31 06:22:07 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:22:07 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> My understanding is that the problems with OTA (over-the-air) DTV (digital TV) reception in the US are, by and large, the result of the US's adoption of 8-VSB (eight-level vestigital-sideband) modulation. In most of the rest of the world (I don't know about Canada and Mexico), the DTV modulation standard is COFDM (coded orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the Cable TV industry, which, for obvious reasons, wants to do away with OTA TV, was behind the choice of 8-VSB. In any event, I do not believe that the TV receivers now sold in the US (and maybe anywhere else) are able to receive both types of modulation, although it ought to be easily possible to add a separate COFDM demodulator. However, after spending billions of dollars on the forced conversion from NTSC (National Television Standards Committee) analog TV to 8-VSB-based ATSC (Advanced Television Standards Committee) DTV, there is zero chance of the US changing TV standards. That makes ATSC/8-VSB the only game in town in the US for however long we still have OTA terrestrial DTV. If I don't have my facts straight, please feel free to correct me. I know that the choice of 8-VSB was supposedly forced by the need for a system that could share channels with ATSC during the transition period, and, it was claimed, COFDM was incapable of that. I am skeptical of such claims, however. And in the absence of some kind of unpublicized pressure, I cannot understand how any engineer in his right mind would accept the premise that people who were unable or unwilling to pay for cable would construct 40' masts for mounting their TV antennas. If you are able to reliably receive OTA DTV with just an indoor antenna, consider yourself extremly lucky. The ATSC system in no way guarantees such reception--even in the strongest-signal areas. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Joseph Ross" To: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > On 8/30/2010 12:38 AM, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> >> The point is that all stations - AM / FM / TV - need to have a >> voice in the digital delivery world. I really don't care what >> device you use to listen to my stations, I want you to be able to >> hear them. That means we need digital transmission standards, >> carrier-neutral transmission, and devices that adhere to, or at >> least accept, those standards. >> > > I don't see why. For all I can tell, digital transmission, at least > over the air, is far more subject to interference than analog, > making many people's reception, since the government-forced > changeover, much more problematic, even nonexistent. > > I first saw color TV in the Museum of Science in 1955 or 56. The > picture quality was very bad, and the same was true of every color > set I saw for the next several years (usually in TV stores). Black > and white pictures on early color sets had a greenish tint and were > inferior to pictures on a B&W set. But the acceptance of color > depended on the market, not on a government mandate. As color TVs > got better, and the price came down, more and more people started to > buy them. Their market penetration was natural as the product got > better. Digital radio and TV should also have to compete and win > customers by offering an attractive product. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Aug 31 06:39:08 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:39:08 -0400 Subject: Correction: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave><4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <1529B9E5A2FA44D2B830D9670ED31E05@SatU205S5044> Oops! Correction: In the second sentence below, I should have referred to NTSC, not to ATSC. Sorry! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "A Joseph Ross" ; Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > > If I don't have my facts straight, please feel free to correct me. I > know that the choice of 8-VSB was supposedly forced by the need for > a > system that could share channels with ATSC during the transition > period, and, it was claimed, COFDM was incapable of that. > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 From sid@wrko.com Tue Aug 31 07:35:05 2010 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:35:05 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545A16061@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> "My understanding is that the problems with OTA (over-the-air) DTV (digital TV) reception in the US are, by and large, the result of the US's adoption of 8-VSB (eight-level vestigital-sideband) modulation." >From what I've seen and read, it's a combination of 8-VSB and the substantially lower-than-analog ERP allowed for digital stations. Apparently it's less of a problem in the UHF band, but the lower ERP really beats up any DTV stations still using VHF spectrum (as WHDH-TV and others found out the hard way). I have no idea how the FCC cooked up the idea that lower digital ERP would still produce similar coverage to analog, but it was apparently dead wrong. I'm also hearing that DTV tuner sensitivity is substantially lower than that of analog tuners, but the only evidence I've read is anecdotal...haven't seen any hard figures. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From john@minutemancomm.com Tue Aug 31 08:17:31 2010 From: john@minutemancomm.com (John Mullaney) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:17:31 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave><4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <3AA1B51AB39043C0AD9527C2D81B4ADD@johnster1> Well you would be a conspiracy theorist because the cable industry's biggest complaint about HDTV since day one was they were not invited to the table when the standard was being devolved as if the OTA folks didn't think they mattered. It's the very reason today that cable companies are having so much trouble coming up with the bandwidth necessary to deliver enough HD channels and the same reason they will never be able to pass all HD TV. The absolute craziest part of the standard is how there was no sync method built in to keep audio and video tracked across equipment or the separate paths that happen within Network, Local or Cable TV facilities and transmission paths. This is why you often see the two way out of whack during live programs even the superbowl. This causes Cable and others all sorts of problems downstream often with humans trying to line them back up by eye. This standard will also spell the end of "the must carry rule" making many cable systems burst at the seams. The competition across the country to bring large numbers of HD channels to customers will force many to use compression technologies they'd rather not just to satisfy consumers crying for more HD. Locally Comcast is not compressing HD currently (Contrary to what many folks believe..) but I wonder how long they will be able to keep that up as consumers continue to cry for the same HD line ups that other carriers both satellite and cable are delivering who are? All of this didn't have to happen if the cablelab folks (who develop the cable standards) had been invited in during the HDTV standards development. Was the TV industry living in the past when they felt cable companies didn't matter or actually thought that over the air reception would make an incredible come back? Whatever TV was thinking it was incredibly short sighted to push an HDTV standard they wanted on the folks that deliver the signal to 80% of their customers without any regard to their current technology or their capabilities to expand. It's all part of this continuing feeling broadcast TV is carrying from years ago that it doesn't really need cable and sees it as some sort of leach but I think soon cable will be reminding broadcasters it doesn't really need them. Soon it will be hard to figure out who is slapping the hand that feeds who. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Dan.Strassberg Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:22 AM To: A Joseph Ross; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" My understanding is that the problems with OTA (over-the-air) DTV (digital TV) reception in the US are, by and large, the result of the US's adoption of 8-VSB (eight-level vestigital-sideband) modulation. In most of the rest of the world (I don't know about Canada and Mexico), the DTV modulation standard is COFDM (coded orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the Cable TV industry, which, for obvious reasons, wants to do away with OTA TV, was behind the choice of 8-VSB. In any event, I do not believe that the TV receivers now sold in the US (and maybe anywhere else) are able to receive both types of modulation, although it ought to be easily possible to add a separate COFDM demodulator. However, after spending billions of dollars on the forced conversion from NTSC (National Television Standards Committee) analog TV to 8-VSB-based ATSC (Advanced Television Standards Committee) DTV, there is zero chance of the US changing TV standards. That makes ATSC/8-VSB the only game in town in the US for however long we still have OTA terrestrial DTV. If I don't have my facts straight, please feel free to correct me. I know that the choice of 8-VSB was supposedly forced by the need for a system that could share channels with ATSC during the transition period, and, it was claimed, COFDM was incapable of that. I am skeptical of such claims, however. And in the absence of some kind of unpublicized pressure, I cannot understand how any engineer in his right mind would accept the premise that people who were unable or unwilling to pay for cable would construct 40' masts for mounting their TV antennas. If you are able to reliably receive OTA DTV with just an indoor antenna, consider yourself extremly lucky. The ATSC system in no way guarantees such reception--even in the strongest-signal areas. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Joseph Ross" To: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > On 8/30/2010 12:38 AM, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> >> The point is that all stations - AM / FM / TV - need to have a >> voice in the digital delivery world. I really don't care what >> device you use to listen to my stations, I want you to be able to >> hear them. That means we need digital transmission standards, >> carrier-neutral transmission, and devices that adhere to, or at >> least accept, those standards. >> > > I don't see why. For all I can tell, digital transmission, at least > over the air, is far more subject to interference than analog, > making many people's reception, since the government-forced > changeover, much more problematic, even nonexistent. > > I first saw color TV in the Museum of Science in 1955 or 56. The > picture quality was very bad, and the same was true of every color > set I saw for the next several years (usually in TV stores). Black > and white pictures on early color sets had a greenish tint and were > inferior to pictures on a B&W set. But the acceptance of color > depended on the market, not on a government mandate. As color TVs > got better, and the price came down, more and more people started to > buy them. Their market penetration was natural as the product got > better. Digital radio and TV should also have to compete and win > customers by offering an attractive product. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3102 - Release Date: 08/30/10 02:35:00 From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Aug 31 08:25:35 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?RG91ZyBEcm93bg==?=) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:25:35 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio Message-ID: <20100831082535.bb18msgjnq8ggkso@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Thomas - Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who is/was the longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting history? I'm thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI in 1921 or '22, up to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think of Carl deSuze, Dave Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and others. Does anyone have a definitive answer? -Doug Quoting Thomas Heathwood : > For those who remember "Big Brother" Bob Emery from his many years at WBZ-TV, > you might be interested in hearing what he sounded like in 1926 when he was > recorded by BRUNSWICK Records doing a recreation of his program on > WEEI. It's > on my Heritage Radio Theatre this week - at: > VintageRadioPlace.com./broadcast > streaming audio 24/7 Tom Heathwood > From billohno@gmail.com Tue Aug 31 09:06:41 2010 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:06:41 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: <20100831082535.bb18msgjnq8ggkso@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831082535.bb18msgjnq8ggkso@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <4C7CFE61.5000200@gmail.com> On 8/31/2010 8:25 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > Thomas - > Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who is/was the > longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting history? I'm > thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI in 1921 or '22, up > to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think of Carl deSuze, Dave > Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and others. Does anyone have a > definitive answer? -Doug > Not definitive, but I thought it was Jess Cain at WHDH (850 Boston) for continuous in same shift - AM drive. Bill O'Neill From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Aug 31 09:37:30 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:37:30 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio References: <20100831082535.bb18msgjnq8ggkso@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <4C7CFE61.5000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4980392A23A64FB5BC6AE7471A14C734@SatU205S5044> Didn't Carl DeSuze start the AM drive shift at WBZ in the '30s and continue into the '70s or maybe the '80s? Jess began at WHDH as Ray Dory's sidekick in either 1956 or 1957 and continued into the '80s or maybe the '90s. If my years are correct (and the only one I'm pretty confident of is Cain starting at WHDH in '56 or '57), then Cain and DeSuze were pretty close in longevity at their respective stations. But without more info, I'd be hard-pressed to say who was at his station for the greater number of years. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio > On 8/31/2010 8:25 AM, Doug Drown wrote: >> Thomas - >> Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who is/was >> the longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting >> history? I'm thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI in >> 1921 or '22, up to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think of >> Carl deSuze, Dave Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and others. >> Does anyone have a definitive answer? -Doug >> > Not definitive, but I thought it was Jess Cain at WHDH (850 Boston) > for continuous in same shift - AM drive. > > Bill O'Neill From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Aug 31 10:37:00 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?RG91ZyBEcm93bg==?=) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:37:00 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio Message-ID: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to WBZ in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he retired (1986-ish). Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter end, when it became WEEI? -Doug Quoting "Dan.Strassberg" : > Didn't Carl DeSuze start the AM drive shift at WBZ in the '30s and > continue into the '70s or maybe the '80s? Jess began at WHDH as Ray > Dory's sidekick in either 1956 or 1957 and continued into the '80s or > maybe the '90s. If my years are correct (and the only one I'm pretty > confident of is Cain starting at WHDH in '56 or '57), then Cain and > DeSuze were pretty close in longevity at their respective stations. > But without more info, I'd be hard-pressed to say who was at his > station for the greater number of years. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:06 AM > Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio > > > > On 8/31/2010 8:25 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > >> Thomas - > >> Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who is/was > >> the longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting > >> history? I'm thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI in > >> 1921 or '22, up to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think of > >> Carl deSuze, Dave Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and others. > >> Does anyone have a definitive answer? -Doug > >> > > Not definitive, but I thought it was Jess Cain at WHDH (850 Boston) > > for continuous in same shift - AM drive. > > > > Bill O'Neill > From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Aug 31 10:44:55 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:44:55 +0000 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <708541551-1283265896-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1659416982-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Jess left in 1991 I have a tape of his last show which was done at the Top of the Pru Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: "Doug Drown" Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:37:00 To: Bill O'Neill; ; Dan.Strassberg Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to WBZ in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he retired (1986-ish). Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter end, when it became WEEI? -Doug Quoting "Dan.Strassberg" : > Didn't Carl DeSuze start the AM drive shift at WBZ in the '30s and > continue into the '70s or maybe the '80s? Jess began at WHDH as Ray > Dory's sidekick in either 1956 or 1957 and continued into the '80s or > maybe the '90s. If my years are correct (and the only one I'm pretty > confident of is Cain starting at WHDH in '56 or '57), then Cain and > DeSuze were pretty close in longevity at their respective stations. > But without more info, I'd be hard-pressed to say who was at his > station for the greater number of years. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:06 AM > Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio > > > > On 8/31/2010 8:25 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > >> Thomas - > >> Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who is/was > >> the longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting > >> history? I'm thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI in > >> 1921 or '22, up to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think of > >> Carl deSuze, Dave Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and others. > >> Does anyone have a definitive answer? -Doug > >> > > Not definitive, but I thought it was Jess Cain at WHDH (850 Boston) > > for continuous in same shift - AM drive. > > > > Bill O'Neill > From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Aug 31 10:57:35 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:57:35 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio References: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <708541551-1283265896-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1659416982-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <5D29F2B8C1AF4D1EA1C28407FD3AA218@SatU205S5044> So DeSuze was at WBZ approximately 10 years longer than Cain was at WHDH. Even if it turns out to be wrong, it sure sounds credible to me. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "Doug Drown" ; ; "Bill O'Neill" ; ; "Dan.Strassberg" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:44 AM Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio > Jess left in 1991 > > I have a tape of his last show which was done at the Top of the Pru > Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Doug Drown" > Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:37:00 > To: Bill O'Neill; > ; > Dan.Strassberg > Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio > > Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to > WBZ > in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he retired > (1986-ish). > Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter end, when it became > WEEI? -Doug > > > Quoting "Dan.Strassberg" : >> Didn't Carl DeSuze start the AM drive shift at WBZ in the '30s and >> continue into the '70s or maybe the '80s? Jess began at WHDH as Ray >> Dory's sidekick in either 1956 or 1957 and continued into the '80s >> or >> maybe the '90s. If my years are correct (and the only one I'm >> pretty >> confident of is Cain starting at WHDH in '56 or '57), then Cain and >> DeSuze were pretty close in longevity at their respective stations. >> But without more info, I'd be hard-pressed to say who was at his >> station for the greater number of years. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:06 AM >> Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio >> >> >> > On 8/31/2010 8:25 AM, Doug Drown wrote: >> >> Thomas - >> >> Your recording of Bob Emery leads me to ask a question: Who >> >> is/was >> >> the longest-working personality in Boston area broadcasting >> >> history? I'm thinking it would have to have been Bob Emery (WGI >> >> in >> >> 1921 or '22, up to "Big Brother" in the '60s), but then I think >> >> of >> >> Carl deSuze, Dave Maynard, Bill Marlowe, Gus Saunders and >> >> others. >> >> Does anyone have a definitive answer? -Doug >> >> >> > Not definitive, but I thought it was Jess Cain at WHDH (850 >> > Boston) >> > for continuous in same shift - AM drive. >> > >> > Bill O'Neill >> > > > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Aug 31 11:50:35 2010 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WLNE officially for sale Message-ID: <258278.65684.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/television-station-channel-6-i.html It seems no matter what they put on they can't pry eyeballs away from WJAR. Good luck to the next owners. This is the one signal I fear will go dark someday. From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Aug 31 12:12:16 2010 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:12:16 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <201008311612.o7VGCamp096533@tsornin.bostonradio.org> At 10:37 AM 8/31/2010, Doug Drown wrote: >Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to >WBZ in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he >retired (1986-ish). Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter >end, when it became WEEI? Carl De Suze officially joined WBZ in 1942. I havev a photocopy of the press release that announced his arrival. Most of the sources I can get my hands on right now (I'm not in my office) say he retired in 1985...43 years if my math is correct? From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Aug 31 12:17:16 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:17:16 +0000 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: <201008311612.o7VGCamp096533@tsornin.bostonradio.org> References: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net><201008311612.o7VGCamp096533@tsornin.bostonradio.org> Message-ID: <1445223959-1283271436-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1820474916-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/orionmax/wgnam-orion-samuelson-50th-anniversary-jfk-assassination,0,3686232.mp3file Orion Samuelson at WGN Chicago just hit the 50 year mark at the station The link above is amazing - he was doing his farm show when JFK was shot - he announced it - then went back to the cows. Have to wonder if the newsman was at lunch Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: Donna Halper Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:12:16 To: Doug Drown; Bill O'Neill; ; Dan.Strassberg Subject: Re: Boston Vintage Radio At 10:37 AM 8/31/2010, Doug Drown wrote: >Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to >WBZ in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he >retired (1986-ish). Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter >end, when it became WEEI? Carl De Suze officially joined WBZ in 1942. I havev a photocopy of the press release that announced his arrival. Most of the sources I can get my hands on right now (I'm not in my office) say he retired in 1985...43 years if my math is correct? From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Aug 31 12:17:06 2010 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:17:06 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831103700.7o2rodcuxtym8c8s@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <201008311617.o7VGHQK1096750@tsornin.bostonradio.org> At 10:37 AM 8/31/2010, Doug Drown wrote: >Carl deSuze began his career at WGAN in Portland in 1938, moved to >WBZ in 1941 if memory serves, and remained there until when he >retired (1986-ish). Was Jess Cain with WHDH right up till the bitter >end, when it became WEEI? I believe Jess Cain got here the same time as Jack Hynes did-- which would be 1956, yes? And my recollection is that he retired in 1991... From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Aug 31 12:20:43 2010 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?RG91ZyBEcm93bg==?=) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:20:43 -0400 Subject: WLNE officially for sale Message-ID: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> WLNE was, I think, pretty healthy back in the days when it was WTEV and was New Bedford-Fall River oriented. If that were still the case --- if its core target audience were southeastern Massachusetts rather than Providence --- would the station be in better shape? Quoting Maureen Carney : > http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/television-station-channel-6-i.html > > It seems no matter what they put on they can't pry eyeballs away from > WJAR. Good > luck to the next owners. This is the one signal I fear will go dark someday. > > > > From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Aug 31 12:27:00 2010 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:27:00 +0000 Subject: WLNE officially for sale In-Reply-To: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <990445303-1283272020-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1417420791-@bda258.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> They could have had Taunton-Fall River-New Bedford and the Cape to themselves but noooo they had to go for Rhode Island. WJAR just is too entrenched - 12 needs 64 to stay afloat. Last I saw the County St complex in New Bedford was a karate studio Sent on from my BlackBerry? so typos are because of tiny keys -----Original Message----- From: "Doug Drown" Sender: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:20:43 To: Boston Radio Group; Maureen Carney Subject: Re: WLNE officially for sale WLNE was, I think, pretty healthy back in the days when it was WTEV and was New Bedford-Fall River oriented. If that were still the case --- if its core target audience were southeastern Massachusetts rather than Providence --- would the station be in better shape? Quoting Maureen Carney : > http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/television-station-channel-6-i.html > > It seems no matter what they put on they can't pry eyeballs away from > WJAR. Good > luck to the next owners. This is the one signal I fear will go dark someday. > > > > From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Aug 31 12:36:33 2010 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:36:33 -0400 Subject: Boston Vintage Radio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201008311636.o7VGaqnG097659@tsornin.bostonradio.org> At 04:43 AM 8/31/2010, Thomas Heathwood wrote: >For those who remember "Big Brother" Bob Emery from his many years >at WBZ-TV, you might be interested in hearing what he sounded like >in 1926 when he was recorded by BRUNSWICK Records doing a recreation >of his program on WEEI. It's on my Heritage Radio Theatre this week And I am glad it is. I have the 78, although yours has much better sound quality. He recorded it with his radio band, the Joy Spreaders, who included a very young Perry Lipson. Perry's son Neil, who is blind, became a respected jazz musician in and around Boston. From paul@derrynh.net Tue Aug 31 12:49:36 2010 From: paul@derrynh.net (Paul Hopfgarten) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:49:36 -0400 Subject: WLNE officially for sale In-Reply-To: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <1E60CD31F1AA43C6A1E7385A6B45BBD0@PaulPC> I remember growing up in Randolph MA that WPRI-12 and WJAR-10 actually came in better (no ghosts bouncing off Blue Hill) than the 3 Boston network affiliates. I would watch network shows on 10 and 12 back then. But 6-WTEV was always an adventure! WSMW-27 Worcester came in better than 6 at my house. (44 was crap even though I was about 7-8 miles from TX). We were lucky in the Boston-Providence corridor for TV (2-4-5-6-7-9-10-12-27-36-38-44-56) back in the day compared to most parts of the country in the early 70s.... (36 was the least likely signal, about the same quality as WMUR-9 back then) -Paul Hopfgarten -Concord NH -------------------------------------------------- From: "Doug Drown" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:20 PM To: "Boston Radio Group" ; "Maureen Carney" Subject: Re: WLNE officially for sale > WLNE was, I think, pretty healthy back in the days when it was WTEV and > was New Bedford-Fall River oriented. If that were still the case --- > if its core target audience were southeastern Massachusetts rather than > Providence --- would the station be in better shape? > > Quoting Maureen Carney : >> http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/television-station-channel-6-i.html >> >> It seems no matter what they put on they can't pry eyeballs away from >> WJAR. Good >> luck to the next owners. This is the one signal I fear will go dark >> someday. >> >> >> > > > From markwats@comcast.net Tue Aug 31 17:19:57 2010 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:19:57 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><4C7B0D7A.4090603@attorneyross.com> <594C4E7C86854B6D8BD2BA3C9059CEFC@s20035> Message-ID: <51B728D91899429F99248EEF5F322439@Mark> Don wrote: > My first new car was in 1980 Checkvrolet....and it still only came with > AM. My first car in 1981 was a 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass, with factory AM/FM. Was purchased used from a friend/co-worker of my father, AM/FM most likely an option in 1973. Once that car was driven into the ground, my next car in 1983 was a 1980 Dodge Aspen station wagon, factory AM only radio. I added an FM converter. After the Aspen was totalled in an accident in 1986, my next vehicle (purchased quickly) to more comfortably accomodate the growing amount of record crates & boxes, speakers, turntables, etc.for my DJ biz was a 1982 Chevy van, AM only radio. Never did put an FM converter in that one. My first vehicle purchased new replaced the Chevy: a 1989 Ford Econoline van, factory AM/FM. Next came the 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan with AM/FM/cassette, followed by the 2003 Grand Caravan with AM/FM/cassette/CD and finally the 2010 Grand Caravan with AM/FM/CD. Mark Watson From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 31 18:39:32 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:39:32 -0400 Subject: WLNE officially for sale In-Reply-To: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20100831122043.gj1vhcmt0mos0sw4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <19581.33956.296773.776664@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > WLNE was, I think, pretty healthy back in the days when it was WTEV and > was New Bedford-Fall River oriented. If that were still the case --- > if its core target audience were southeastern Massachusetts rather than > Providence --- would the station be in better shape? Extraordinarily unlikely. There's no money in New Bedford. 6 went where their advertisers were. -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 31 18:58:10 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:58:10 -0400 Subject: Digital TV (was: RE: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology") In-Reply-To: <3AA1B51AB39043C0AD9527C2D81B4ADD@johnster1> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> <3AA1B51AB39043C0AD9527C2D81B4ADD@johnster1> Message-ID: <19581.35074.531500.502501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > often with humans trying to line them back up by eye. This standard will > also spell the end of "the must carry rule" Must-carry isn't a rule, it's a statute, part of the Cable Act of 1992, and it's not going anywhere. (It's also not particularly relevant: the broadcasters that benefit from must-carry are less likely to even have HD programming -- think of all the religellators and home-shopping stations -- and will likely be the first ones to fall when broadcast TV shuts down in five or ten years. The broadcasters with the large portfolio of HD programming and audiences to match are all in the "retrans consent" regime, not must-carry.) > Comcast is not compressing HD currently (Contrary to what many folks > believe..) That statement implies something that is not true, which is that *anyone* has uncompressed HD. Comcast may not be transcoding the HD that they get, but you can be sure it's still compressed, because that's how all HD programming comes from the provider. > but I wonder how long they will be able to keep that up as > consumers continue to cry for the same HD line ups that other carriers both > satellite and cable are delivering who are? All of this didn't have to > happen if the cablelab folks (who develop the cable standards) had been > invited in during the HDTV standards development. What does that have to do with anything? The ATSC standard specifies MPEG-2, which was current when it was developed; the cable industry didn't have anything to offer that wasn't already available to the ATSC. Many countries where digital TV is just now being deployed are opting for MPEG-4 instead. > Was the TV industry living in the past when they felt cable > companies didn't matter or actually thought that over the air > reception would make an incredible come back? Whatever TV was > thinking it was incredibly short sighted to push an HDTV standard > they wanted What makes you think ATSC was what the TV industry wanted? It was what the *government* and the *consumer electronics industry* wanted; from all available evidence, the TV industry just wanted *some* standard to be set in stone before Uncle Sam was going to force them to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their infrastructure. PS to all list members: please don't top-post, and please do trim quotations to the minimum necessary for context. Everyone on the list (or reading the archives) has already seen the message you are replying to; they don't need to get an additional copy with every response. -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 31 19:06:55 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:06:55 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545A16061@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545A16061@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <19581.35599.140708.738981@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > From what I've seen and read, it's a combination of 8-VSB and the > substantially lower-than-analog ERP allowed for digital stations. Apples and oranges. Digital TV is regulated for average ERP; analog TV is regulated for peak ERP (which occurs during sync pulses). The peak-to-average ratio of "System M" analog TV is about 5:1 as I understand it, which is why they chose 1000 kW as the average-power limit for UHF DTV (versus 5000 kW peak for NTSC-M). However, that's not enough to account for the horrendous disadvantage the Commission gave the VHF-low band, which I suspect reflects a failure to properly account for the noise floor in that band, particularly when it comes to impulse noise. (This may in turn be related to the Commission's vacillation over whether VHF-low would even be in the post-transition TV band -- their mind was probably made up only when it became clear that there wasn't anyone willing to pay Uncle Sam $billions for the privilege of using that spectrum.) -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Aug 31 20:53:40 2010 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:53:40 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035><90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave><4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com><6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044><0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545A16061@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> <19581.35599.140708.738981@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <817390B328AB40888B4626ED8DDAF9F4@SatU205S5044> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Sid Schweiger" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:06 PM Subject: RE: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" > However, that's > not enough to account for the horrendous disadvantage the Commission > gave the VHF-low band, which I suspect reflects a failure to > properly > account for the noise floor in that band, particularly when it comes > to impulse noise. (This may in turn be related to the Commission's > vacillation over whether VHF-low would even be in the > post-transition > TV band -- their mind was probably made up only when it became clear > that there wasn't anyone willing to pay Uncle Sam $billions for the > privilege of using that spectrum.) > So why is the FCC so reluctant to allow FM to expand into the former TV channels 5 and 6. Even if Channel 6 had to be shared with TV in a few markets (Philadelphia, for one), FM would be an ideal use. Rumor has it that receiver manufacturers already manufacture FM radios that tune from 76 to 108 MHz for use in several foreign countries, so there would not have to be a long wait before the public could get its hands on radios that could tune the expanded FM band. The big issue would then become how best to move the current AMs into the new FM spectrum. From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Aug 31 23:20:22 2010 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:20:22 -0400 Subject: Globe editorial calls FM radio "outdated technology" In-Reply-To: <817390B328AB40888B4626ED8DDAF9F4@SatU205S5044> References: <461E209ABD8E4616BF7B79CE521676F5@s20035> <90D249078D624F67A5B315A78AEEB36A@dave> <4C7C7137.9050601@attorneyross.com> <6FB471324BD44E75A49FE034947D2750@SatU205S5044> <0D5E60C875634E4AA1031FC691BCCC5545A16061@ENTCORMB2.etmcorad.com> <19581.35599.140708.738981@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <817390B328AB40888B4626ED8DDAF9F4@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <19581.50806.357892.473905@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > So why is the FCC so reluctant to allow FM to expand into the former > TV channels 5 and 6. For one, the NAB doesn't want it. > Rumor has it that receiver manufacturers already manufacture FM > radios that tune from 76 to 108 MHz for use in several foreign > countries, Not quite true. The Japanese FM band -- used only in Japan -- does go down that low, but it doesn't go all the way to 108 MHz, so there are a lot of radio chips out there with just a binary strapping option, 76-90 or 88-108. -GAWollman