I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the Hollywood Bowl.
Not on the radio, not on TV, but it was a free (and exclusive) Yahoo webcast.
I ran the Comcast connection on several computers and all came out just fine, no jumpiness, no interruptions, no strange artifacts. I'm not sure how many computers they were serving with this webcast (does anybody know?), but I will say that given the wide audience this kind of thing must have gone out to tens of millions of computers, maybe hundreds of millions.
I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers or what, exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've seen on TV.
What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
"David Kaye" <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring
> Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
> Hollywood Bowl.
.
.
.
Pathetic Evil Americans !
Bill Clinton And Mena Arkansas, Where Massive
Cocaine Shipments Into The United States. Bono Is
Probably Contemplating Spray Painting Justin Herman
Plaza With Something Like *Stop 322 Skull & Bones*
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/322.html Bill Clinton Has A Monica
And George Bush Has A Boner Bono.
> I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring
> Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
> Hollywood Bowl.
> Not on the radio, not on TV, but it was a free (and exclusive) Yahoo
> webcast.
> I ran the Comcast connection on several computers and all came out just
> fine, no jumpiness, no interruptions, no strange artifacts. I'm not sure
> how many computers they were serving with this webcast (does anybody know?),
> but I will say that given the wide audience this kind of thing must have
> gone out to tens of millions of computers, maybe hundreds of millions.
> I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers or what,
> exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio
> superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've seen on
> TV.
> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
Do you find it strange that after being freed of wires with broadcasting we're tied back to them again?
<sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
It says that it's just another gimmick, and is dependent on whomever
sending it out on "broadband" rather than whomever sending it out over
the air. Still needs the intervening link.
I'm taking Continuing Legal Education courses that I download from a
server as MP3 files and play on my computer. The latter is just a
larger version of a radio as far as I'm concerned. I would rather
take these courses in person with a live instructor with whom I can
interact without the necessity of an intervening medium.
Just my own preference.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 11:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> > I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring
> > Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
> > Hollywood Bowl.
> > Not on the radio, not on TV, but it was a free (and exclusive) Yahoo
> > webcast.
> > I ran the Comcast connection on several computers and all came out just
> > fine, no jumpiness, no interruptions, no strange artifacts. I'm not sure
> > how many computers they were serving with this webcast (does anybody know?),
> > but I will say that given the wide audience this kind of thing must have
> > gone out to tens of millions of computers, maybe hundreds of millions.
> > I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers or what,
> > exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio
> > superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've seen on
> > TV.
> > What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
> Do you find it strange that after being freed of wires with broadcasting > we're tied back to them again?
Cellphones can stream audio/video and newer car stereos support the A2DP bluetooth profile. The only downside is that a large crowd of people depletes a cell's bandwidth.
-- I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
> I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring
> Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
> Hollywood Bowl.
I saw Clinton talk about this concert on Letterman and tuned in yesterday just when Stevie Wonder was singing. Did he sing "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" with Hillary sitting there? I suspect that would bring up a lot of bad memories for her.
> I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers or what,
> exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio
> superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've seen on
> TV.
> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
I was reading something or heard that a pretty big percentage of TV, audio and movies are watched on the Internet these days. I think it was a third or maybe half of TV shows are now watched via the Internet. It's not surprising because it's convenient as hell being able to watch what you want whenever you want. Most people I know watch most stuff via the Internet or recording.
> Most people I know watch most stuff via the Internet or recording.
The teenaged son of one of my computer customers knows WNYC's Radiolab and This American Life only via pocasts, not via radio. I'm not sure he even owns a radio unless it's in his MP3 player or something.
> Do you find it strange that after being freed of wires with broadcasting > we're tied back to them again?
When I grew up there were a few on-air channels, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and sometimes 11. We pulled them in via rabbitears atop the set.
But when my dad wanted to pull in 8 and 11 and 13 we got a rooftop antenna, so we were wired fairly early in the game. After cable came into use we got rid of the 300 ohm twinlead wire for 75 ohm round wire.
Tonight I'm looking at 75 ohm lead-in which goes to the computer. So, not much as changed in 40 years.
But we're not as tied as we once were. I could have viewed the webcast on a laptop via a cafe or one of the free wireless links Tim has been setting up around SF. Look ma, no wires.
> It says that it's just another gimmick, and is dependent on whomever
> sending it out on "broadband" rather than whomever sending it out over
> the air. Still needs the intervening link.
Not a gimmick at all. I can see a very near future when the cable networks and such all start streaming. Then there will be no need for DTV or cable TV service at all. This would free Comcast's cable for even faster broadband service. No need to push conventional TV through the cable.
As for radio, well, last night I checked out the various international broadcasters I used to pull in on SW. NHK Radio Japan, Radio Canada, Radio Australia, Radio Nederland, BBC, VOA, RAI -- all have websites with live streams, and have been shutting down their SW broadcasts. I'm putting together a quick web page that lists their streams so I can easily click on what I want.
Anybody have need for a Radio Shack DX-440/Sangeaon 803?
> I would rather
> take these courses in person with a live instructor with whom I can
> interact without the necessity of an intervening medium.
As I've said here in the past, I coordinate a games group that meets twice a week in SF and also in LA. Many/most of the people who attend are computer geeks, but they put away their smartphones and netbooks and whatnot and play real board games in person with other real people each week. Some things just work better in real life than in virtual life.
> It says that it's just another gimmick, and is dependent on whomever
> sending it out on "broadband" rather than whomever sending it out over
> the air. Still needs the intervening link.
I don't believe it's just a gimmick. Leo Laporte uses video (www.twit.tv) to show how his weekly radio (on KGO, KFI, and others) show is done. And it looks pretty darn good to boot. And his podcasts are accompanied with video.
Leo uses a device called a Tricaster to switch video, and with special effects (such as graphics in the lower third) added in. Tricasters ain't cheap either, with the cheapest one going for $10K.
> In article<iXFmq.3123$Q61.1...@newsfe09.iad>,
> Bhairitu<noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 11:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>>> I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast featuring
>>> Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
>>> Hollywood Bowl.
>>> Not on the radio, not on TV, but it was a free (and exclusive) Yahoo
>>> webcast.
>>> I ran the Comcast connection on several computers and all came out just
>>> fine, no jumpiness, no interruptions, no strange artifacts. I'm not sure
>>> how many computers they were serving with this webcast (does anybody know?),
>>> but I will say that given the wide audience this kind of thing must have
>>> gone out to tens of millions of computers, maybe hundreds of millions.
>>> I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers or what,
>>> exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio
>>> superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've seen on
>>> TV.
>>> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
>> Do you find it strange that after being freed of wires with broadcasting
>> we're tied back to them again?
> Cellphones can stream audio/video and newer car stereos support the A2DP
> bluetooth profile. The only downside is that a large crowd of people
> depletes a cell's bandwidth.
Of course and I'm one of the people doing that. I listen to Thom Hartman on my morning walk that way because KKGN was too weak to work even with my Sony Walkman.
>> It says that it's just another gimmick, and is dependent on whomever
>> sending it out on "broadband" rather than whomever sending it out over
>> the air. Still needs the intervening link.
> Not a gimmick at all. I can see a very near future when the cable networks
> and such all start streaming. Then there will be no need for DTV or cable
> TV service at all. This would free Comcast's cable for even faster
> broadband service. No need to push conventional TV through the cable.
Indeed. The Netflix phenomena sort of caught the telecom "suits" by surprise. It's happening too soon for Comcast to go to IPTV like U-Verse. And AT&T and Comcast offerings are rather weak compared to what you can get over streaming at your convenience. You have Netflix, Amazon and Vudu for a wide variety of streaming content including theatrical pre-releases. Then there are "also rans" such as Blockbuster streaming, CinemaNow, HuluPlus and YouTube.
My first streaming DVD player was an AVeL LinkPlayer2 which upscaled over component and could play HDTV streams, hidef Divx, MP4 (simple profile) and WMV. I used my computers as DVRs that way. They also had some Internet streams including ShoutCast ones and even.
<sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>As for radio, well, last night I checked out the various international >broadcasters I used to pull in on SW. NHK Radio Japan, Radio Canada, Radio >Australia, Radio Nederland, BBC, VOA, RAI -- all have websites with live >streams, and have been shutting down their SW broadcasts.
SW - the sounds, the techniques to get a signal in that is usable and
even enjoyable. The glow of the radio dial. One misses all that in
"streaming audio". IT's the difference between a radio operator and
an appliance operator.
This past weekend we went to the TEK-Museum, a storefront set up just
this month by a number of friends who were former Tektronix
engineering employees - there are several thousands of them in this
area - with restored to-new-condition instruments from throughout
Tektronix history. Many of them still work. Several were models that
I used during my career. Many of the instruments on display came from
personal collections. It looked right. It even smelled right.
<sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The teenaged son of one of my computer customers knows WNYC's Radiolab and >This American Life only via pocasts, not via radio. I'm not sure he even >owns a radio unless it's in his MP3 player or something.
When I think of WNYC I surely don't think of it as a source of those
programs, nor of them as a podcast source. Does your customer's son
have any idea of the place that WNYC had in the New York broadcasting
scene over the years?
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
For TV, it means that data caps are essential for AT&T and Comcast to preserve their digital TV revenue.
For radio it probably doesn't mean much since so much radio is listened to while mobile. Also, free terrestrial radio is improving greatly, in audio quality anyway, with the advent of digital radio. Not that much better quality audio will do anything for the quality of programming!
I wonder how many area residents would be happy paying a one time expense for a good antenna on a tower versus paying $50 or more for satellite TV or $80 or more for cable?
> On 10/15/2011 11:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>> [...]
>> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
> For TV, it means that data caps are essential for AT&T and Comcast to
> preserve their digital TV revenue.
> For radio it probably doesn't mean much since so much radio is listened
> to while mobile. Also, free terrestrial radio is improving greatly, in
> audio quality anyway, with the advent of digital radio. Not that much
> better quality audio will do anything for the quality of programming!
> I wonder how many area residents would be happy paying a one time
> expense for a good antenna on a tower versus paying $50 or more for
> satellite TV or $80 or more for cable?
I was working at Sylvania's (then; later GTE's) Electronic Defense Labs
in Mountain View when a group of about 50 of us pooled our resources
to install the "world's best TV antenna" at our homes using an antenna
designed for the US military. Legal stepped in and said we couldn't do
that because the design would be seen by "commie spies" who roamed
Silicon Valley back in those days (1960s). We had already ordered all
the towers, so we added commercial antennas (Winegard IIRC) to the deal
and installed all of them in 1967.
It was kinda cool; I could watch the "U.F.O." (Gerry Anderson show,
details here <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063962/>) twice weekly; once
on Channel 5 in San Francisco, then on Channel 10 in Sacramento, simply
by rotating the antenna. Now, of course, I have that series on both
LaserDisc and DVD. :-)
I've replaced the UHF/VHS antennas twice since then due to the wear
and tear outside, and the rotator once. It still works fine for DTV
and also broadcast FM and HD-Radio. I had to get an HD-Radio receiver
for my favorite background-music station, KKSF, which is now piggybacked
at 98.1-2; it used to be 103.7 FM. See: <http://www.kksf.com/main.html>.
> I've replaced the UHF/VHS antennas twice since then due to the wear
> and tear outside, and the rotator once. It still works fine for DTV
> and also broadcast FM and HD-Radio. I had to get an HD-Radio receiver
> for my favorite background-music station, KKSF, which is now piggybacked
> at 98.1-2; it used to be 103.7 FM. See:<http://www.kksf.com/main.html>.
In a way it's sad to see much good content moving off of HD1/analog and onto the HD sub-channels, but OTOH the alternative would be for that content to disappear completely.
>> I've replaced the UHF/VHS antennas twice since then due to the wear
>> and tear outside, and the rotator once. It still works fine for DTV
>> and also broadcast FM and HD-Radio. I had to get an HD-Radio receiver
>> for my favorite background-music station, KKSF, which is now piggybacked
>> at 98.1-2; it used to be 103.7 FM. See:<http://www.kksf.com/main.html>.
> In a way it's sad to see much good content moving off of HD1/analog and
> onto the HD sub-channels, but OTOH the alternative would be for that
> content to disappear completely.
Very true. I've contemplated replacing my car's radio also, but that's a
major task and expense given how much is combined into the single console
(A/C controls, date/time, in/out temperature displays, etc.) so I haven't
done that. The FM broadcast counterpart to KKSF is someplace north of SF
and beyond the range of my car's radio, but I am able to get KCSM in San
Mateo at 91.1 FM though it's not the same "style" of jazz as KKSF. Sigh.
> On 10/17/2011 6:38 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 6:12 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I've replaced the UHF/VHS antennas twice since then due to the wear
>>> and tear outside, and the rotator once. It still works fine for DTV
>>> and also broadcast FM and HD-Radio. I had to get an HD-Radio receiver
>>> for my favorite background-music station, KKSF, which is now piggybacked
>>> at 98.1-2; it used to be 103.7 FM. See:<http://www.kksf.com/main.html>.
>> In a way it's sad to see much good content moving off of HD1/analog and
>> onto the HD sub-channels, but OTOH the alternative would be for that
>> content to disappear completely.
> Very true. I've contemplated replacing my car's radio also, but that's a
> major task and expense given how much is combined into the single console
> (A/C controls, date/time, in/out temperature displays, etc.) so I haven't
> done that. The FM broadcast counterpart to KKSF is someplace north of SF
> and beyond the range of my car's radio, but I am able to get KCSM in San
> Mateo at 91.1 FM though it's not the same "style" of jazz as KKSF. Sigh.
I know that many, if not most, vehicle owners would like to receive the HD signals but they don't necessarily want to buy a 2012 vehicle in order to do so.
> On 10/16/2011 06:31 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article<iXFmq.3123$Q61.1...@newsfe09.iad>,
>> Bhairitu<noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2011 11:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>>>> I just experienced much of the Bill Clinton Foundation broadcast
>>>> featuring
>>>> Lady GaGa, Bono, Stevie Wonder, and a plethora of other acts from the
>>>> Hollywood Bowl.
>>>> Not on the radio, not on TV, but it was a free (and exclusive) Yahoo
>>>> webcast.
>>>> I ran the Comcast connection on several computers and all came out just
>>>> fine, no jumpiness, no interruptions, no strange artifacts. I'm not
>>>> sure
>>>> how many computers they were serving with this webcast (does anybody
>>>> know?),
>>>> but I will say that given the wide audience this kind of thing must
>>>> have
>>>> gone out to tens of millions of computers, maybe hundreds of millions.
>>>> I'm not sure of the interfacing -- was it MBone to regional servers
>>>> or what,
>>>> exactly? What I do know is that the camera work was flawless, the audio
>>>> superb -- in short, the webcast was as good or better than what I've
>>>> seen on
>>>> TV.
>>>> What does this say about the future of conventional radio and TV?
>>> Do you find it strange that after being freed of wires with broadcasting
>>> we're tied back to them again?
>> Cellphones can stream audio/video and newer car stereos support the A2DP
>> bluetooth profile. The only downside is that a large crowd of people
>> depletes a cell's bandwidth.
> Of course and I'm one of the people doing that. I listen to Thom Hartman
> on my morning walk that way because KKGN was too weak to work even with
> my Sony Walkman.
When multicast protocol finally happens, it'll be the cell carriers who drive it because they'll have to.
> On 10/17/2011 7:01 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 6:38 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2011 6:12 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>>> [...]
>> [...]
>> Very true. I've contemplated replacing my car's radio also, but that's a
>> major task and expense given how much is combined into the single console
>> (A/C controls, date/time, in/out temperature displays, etc.) so I haven't
>> done that. The FM broadcast counterpart to KKSF is someplace north of SF
>> and beyond the range of my car's radio, but I am able to get KCSM in San
>> Mateo at 91.1 FM though it's not the same "style" of jazz as KKSF. Sigh.
> I know that many, if not most, vehicle owners would like to receive the
> HD signals but they don't necessarily want to buy a 2012 vehicle in
> order to do so.
Now THAT's an interesting solution! Thank you very much for the link.
At first glance it appeared that it would work with my car radio and avoid
any externally visible changes (due to "CD", etc.).
My car mfr, model and year shows up in their selection list along with a
variety of choices, but none of those choices feature the HD-Radio option
as does the above URL's selection you supplied, so I'm out of luck (it's a
2001 Aurora, "only" the 4th car I've bought since 1960). Oh, well, it's
back to CDs for long(er) trips than to just the local supermarket. :-)
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:01:59 -0700, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
>I've contemplated replacing my car's radio also, but that's a
>major task and expense ...
See:
<http://www.mp3car.com/show-off-your-project/>
for examples of how it's done. Search for your vehicle for hints. I
have most of the pieces for replacing the AM/FM/CD/cassette monster in
my Subaru, except for the courage and time to rip up the dashboard.
Also, no easy place to mount the necessary LCD touch screen.
However, I just became inspired to move my car radio project along.
The only station I consider worth listening to just changed format
from all classical music, to something else:
<http://www.kbach.com>
I can't hear KDFC in SCZ so I guess it's going to be CD's and MP3's
from here on.
> I wonder how many area residents would be happy paying a one time expense > for a good antenna on a tower versus paying $50 or more for satellite TV > or $80 or more for cable?
Gosh, Astoria Oregon all over again (supposedly the founding place of CATV, when residents who felt left out of the TV revolution chipped in to build a tower and put up an antenna to get the Seattle stations.
> SW - the sounds, the techniques to get a signal in that is usable and
> even enjoyable. The glow of the radio dial.
The smell of the components heating up in a tube radio, yeah I'm nostalgic for all of that, too. There was a certain mystery about it all. I remember DXing the VOA relay station in Monrovia Liberia the day it went on the air. Yeah it was the VOA and yeah I could have gotten a better signal from Greenville, Dixon, or Delano, but Monrovia was special.
I also remember sitting up late at night listening to the Voice of Free Korea, Radio Peking, and the various Radio Moscow broadcasts from the worst sounding transmitters I'd ever heard.
What I also remember is that I don't remember much about the actual content of those broadcasts. The communists were calling us Americans "running dogs" for capitalism. Radio Nederland had some kind of contest to win a pair of wooden Dutch shoes or something. But overall, for me it was the experience of listening, not actually learning anything that kept me up late at night.
> with restored to-new-condition instruments from throughout
> Tektronix history. Many of them still work. Several were models that
> I used during my career. Many of the instruments on display came from
> personal collections. It looked right. It even smelled right.
Tech museums (even Tek museums) do nothing for me, maybe because I don't want to revisit things from my own life. Early stuff, definitely.
For example, the Coos county historical museum in North Bend Oregon has a fascinating display that includes candelabras that provided heat for hot air balloons the Japanese sailed across the Pacific during WWII, hoping that these balloons would land and set fires to the areas along the coast. Of course, given the PNW's near continuous rain and mist, most of them went out before the reached land. HOWEVER, several of them actually did touch land and at least a couple did end up setting small fires. Amazing stuff! Now, that's technology I can wrap myself around.
> Does your customer's son
> have any idea of the place that WNYC had in the New York broadcasting
> scene over the years?
Nope, nor does he care. He's growing up in the 2010s and you're referring to the 1960s I believe. That's 40-50 years. That's comparable to me growing up and being expected to appreciate the silent film era. I don't (though Theda Bara was very cute and all...)
