why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
RHF
OK -if- we look at the last FCC Data for AM and FM
Broadcast Radio Station Totals :
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt061231.html#START
Total AM Radio Stations = 4,754
Total FM Radio Stations = 6,266
Total FM {Educational} PBS/NPR Radio Stations = 2,817
GRAND TOTAL FOR RADIO = 13,837
Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
* This would create "Space-and-Distance" within the
AM/MW Radio Band for those wider "HD" AM Radio
Signals and their Adjacent Channel Digial Noise.
Why Not - Expand the FM Band to cover 76 MHz to 88 MHz
to create and additional 60 Channels for most of the AM/MW
Radio Stations to transition to -and- Clear-Out the AM/MW
Band except for about 250 National and Regional Clear
Channel AM "HD" Radio Stations.
Again -IMHO- You have proven the case for FM "HD" Radio
as a Long Term Business Strategy -and- You have shown
that AM "HD" Radio is a short term business strategy that
at best is only buying time for Corporations to Divest them
selves of what will become an every dimishing market while
their FM Radio Business is Growing and Expanding.
"HD" {Digital-IBOC} AM/MW Radio only makes long term
business sense when there are fewer AM/MW Radio Stations
that are in-fact Clear Channels and Powerful enough to
cover Large Regions of the Country Day-and-Night. This
can only happen with a reduction in the number of AM/MW
Radio Stations and Greater Separtation : Frequency and
Distance between the Radio Stations : 10 kHz and 100
Miles needs to be expanded to 20-30 kHz and 250+ Miles.
Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
'closed' Clear Channel.
or better yet - why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
- - - Leave AM Radio Alone :o) ~ RHF
.
.
. .
On Mar 10, 9:24 am, "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1173515484....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Long Term IBOC FM "HD" Radio would give them :
> > 1 - Better Overall Local Market Signal Coverage
> > 2 - Better Sound Quality and the 'option' for a
> > Second Audio {Data} Channel.
> > 3 - Plus Younger Listener Demographics
> > - - - So . . . Why Waste the Time, Money and
> > Technology on IBOC AM "HD" Radio which as
> > you admit is at best a short term lossing game.
>
> There is a real simple reason and that is based on the fact that nearly all
> broadcast companies are publicly held. Moving a big n/t station to FM and
> abandoning the AM to a lesser format would require a write-down of the book
> asset value of the property, which would affect earnings.
>
> Bonneville, held by the LDS, can afford to do this kind of dramatic move.
> Most of the rest will have to slowly move to simulcasts and gradual
> adjustments in the values of assets, rather than just pulling the lug; HD
> may offer some alternatives, such as niche music formats, too... it is a
> hedge play... and for a big AM, not particularly expensive. As an example,
> changing a 50 kw AM in LA to HD with a brand new transmitter is less than
> $250,000 in a market where bigger stations typically bill $40 million to $60
> million a year.
David
wrote:
>or better yet - why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
>- - - Leave AM Radio Alone :o) ~ RHF
> .
> .
AM IBOC is a solution in search of a problem.
Doug Smith
> Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
> AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
> Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
> the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
I don't think there are enough FM stations serving rural areas to make
this work. (they all tend to move in to the nearest large city)
Frequencies are not available to create new FM stations.
> Why Not - Expand the FM Band to cover 76 MHz to 88 MHz
> to create and additional 60 Channels for most of the AM/MW
> Radio Stations to transition to -and- Clear-Out the AM/MW
> Band except for about 250 National and Regional Clear
> Channel AM "HD" Radio Stations.
I used to say this is not possible, because contrary to publicity these
channels will still be used for digital TV. But very few digital TV
stations have elected to use channels 2-6; except for one place (in
Alaska, I think) no market has DTV stations on both channels 5 and 6.
One, or both, channels *could* be used for FM pretty much everywhere.
There would be the problem that no consumer radios cover 76-88; it would
take a LONG time to distribute enough equipment for an FM station on
77.5MHz to be profitable. Of course, you could say the same thing about
moving a small-town AM station to IBOC.
(personally, I'd rather see any possible 76-88 radio band used for Eureka
digital broadcasting. Since digital radios have to be purchased new
anyway, the opening of a new frequency band is not an issue, and it would
alleviate the interference being caused by FM IBOC. But I don't think
there's any way we're going to see Eureka 147 in the US.)
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Rethinking AM's Future"
"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of
reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the
anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public
summaries whether a station is on the air."
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html
AM-HD is pretty much dead, anyway. The FCC has put out a podcast on
RadioInk about IBOC.
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> On 12 Mar 2007 05:17:40 -0700, "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >or better yet - why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
> >- - - Leave AM Radio Alone :o) ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
> AM IBOC is a solution in search of a problem.
With few HD radios sold, FM-HD is also a solution in search of a
problem.
HD Radio²
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> It is alone and getting much lonlier.
Sorry, to hear that.
David Eduardo
"Doug Smith" <w9...@invalid.nospam> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.12...@invalid.nospam...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:17:40 -0700, RHF wrote:
>> Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
>> AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
>> Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
>> the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
>
> I don't think there are enough FM stations serving rural areas to make
> this work. (they all tend to move in to the nearest large city)
> Frequencies are not available to create new FM stations.
On the other hand, I can give one example of where FM is vastly better. The
Norhtern Arizona market of Prescott, Sedona and Flagstaff has only a few
AMs, and most have very limited coverage, generally of only one of the
cities in the bigger total market. But there are over a dozen full coverage
FMs and quite a few smaller ones that cover more than any of the AMs. The
AMs are, for the most part, not factors.
I had the same experience in NW Wyoming around Jackson Hole... many FMs
listenable, but the AMs did not generally make it much beyond the COL.
Move ins, in many cases, offer the opportunity for new allocations. This is
the case with many of the FMs in the last several auctions.
David Eduardo
<AnotherBo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173710936.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
> Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
> Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
> 'closed' Clear Channel.
If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
usable than the analog signal.
>
<"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of
<reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the
<anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public
<summaries whether a station is on the air."
And those 175 represent about 90% of the viable AMs in the top 100 markets.
dxAce
David Frackelton Gleason, so bad as a boy, his mama sent him away to be a
remittance man, wrote:
> <AnotherBo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1173710936.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
> > Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
> > Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
> > 'closed' Clear Channel.
>
> If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
> signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
> usable than the analog signal.
More usable QRM... hmmmm
Edweenie, you'd best run along, and please, take your dog and pony show with
you, retard.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> David Frackelton Gleason, so bad as a boy, his mama sent him away to be a
>
> remittance man, wrote:
> >news:1173710936.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
> > > Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
> > > Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
> > > 'closed' Clear Channel.
>
> > If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
> > signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
> > usable than the analog signal.
>
> More usable QRM... hmmmm
>
> Edweenie, you'd best run along, and please, take your dog and pony show with
> you, retard.
>
> dxAce
> Michigan
> USA
DE is just trying to make all the DX'ers miserable, by dooming the SW
and AM bands - but wait, IBOC to the rescue !!!
RHF
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:17:40 -0700, RHF wrote:
> > Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
> > AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
> > Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
> > the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
>
> I don't think there are enough FM stations serving rural areas to make
> this work. (they all tend to move in to the nearest large city)
> Frequencies are not available to create new FM stations.
>
> > Why Not - Expand the FM Band to cover 76 MHz to 88 MHz
> > to create and additional 60 Channels for most of the AM/MW
> > Radio Stations to transition to -and- Clear-Out the AM/MW
> > Band except for about 250 National and Regional Clear
> > Channel AM "HD" Radio Stations.
>
> I used to say this is not possible, because contrary to publicity these
> channels will still be used for digital TV. But very few digital TV
> stations have elected to use channels 2-6; except for one place (in
> Alaska, I think) no market has DTV stations on both channels 5 and 6.
> One, or both, channels *could* be used for FM pretty much everywhere.
>
- it would take a LONG time to distribute enough equipment for an
- FM station on 77.5MHz to be profitable. Of course, you could say
- the same thing about moving a small-town AM station to IBOC.
Profits ! ! ! - Who Needs Profits ? ? ?
Move all the so called FM {Educational} PBS/NPR Radio Stations
which Total about 2,817; down to the 76-88 MHz range and the US
Congress will have a National Action Plan to "GIVE" a new FM "HD"
Radio to every poor family in America -and- Tax Credits for all of us
Working Tax-Paying Citizens.
i have a plan . . . ~ RHF
.
.
. .
>
RHF
> <AnotherBogusAcco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173710936.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
> > Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
> > Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
> > 'closed' Clear Channel.
>
> If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
> signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
> usable than the analog signal.
DE - On this we Agree ~ RHF
So why not Boost the AM Digital Signal Power to 10%, 20%
or even 40% and reduce the AM Analog Signal Power by 50%
at least during the Day on an Experimental {test} Basis to
see -if- AM "HD" can Fully Cover a Local Market Area ? ? ?
.
.
. .
> <"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of
> <reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the
> <anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public
> <summaries whether a station is on the air."
>
- And those 175 represent about 90% of the viable AMs
- in the top 100 markets.
DE,
So basically when the number of AM "HD" Radio Stations
reaches about 525 that are Broadcasting 24/7 in "HD" there
will be about 97%-98% Coverage of the Top 299 Radio Media
Markets. And -because- these 525 AM "HD" Radio Stations
are Broadcasting 24/7 in "HD" all 'other' AM Radio Stations
will be at a Signal and Power disadvantage and either be
Force to 'convert' to AM "HD" Broadcasting -or- 'transition'
to FM "HD" Broadcasting.
Therefore the AM "HD" Radio 'play' seams to be Get-There-First
-and- Out Power {Stronger Digital Signal and More Digital
Adjacent Channel Noise} the Competition. -imho- ~ RHF
.
.
. .
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
You can keep spouting this crap until the cows come home but nobody but
you believes it.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <yXgJh.4713$yW.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <AnotherBogusAcco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Telamon,
Kim Komando - "America's Digital Goddess"
http://www.komando.com/buyguide/index.aspx?id=3024
would seam to be promoting HD Radio . . .
KOMANDO => http://www.komando.com/
But me thinks that this is focused on FM "HD" Radio
and AM {HD} Radio is not a real issue with her.
hd radio well just may be...
but then again only time will tell ~ RHF
.
.
. .
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
It's very simple to verify. Look at the geography of the metro in each top
100 market. Then look at the day and night "usable" coverage of the AM
stations in each market. You will find that there are very few markets with
more than a couple of signals that fully cover the market they are in; all
the rest are partial in coverage and, by virtue of being AM and having
defective coverage, are not going to be much of a factor.
For example, Washington DC does not have one viable AM station. Phoenix has
two. Boston has, maybe, 3. Philadelphia has 3. Miami has one, and that is a
stretch. Denver has 2. Chicago has 5, San Francisco has 4, San Diego has 2,
Dallas / Ft Worth has 3, Houston has, barely, 1, Pittsburgh has 1, Atlanta
has 1, Nashville has 1, Detroit has 2, etc., etc. As markets grow more and
more to the suburbs, fewer and fewer stations are going to be viable.
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <yXgJh.4713$yW.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Telamon,
Kim Komando - "America's Digital Goddess"
http://www.komando.com/buyguide/index.aspx?id=3024
would seam to be promoting HD Radio . . .
KOMANDO => http://www.komando.com/
But me thinks that this is focused on FM "HD" Radio
and AM {HD} Radio is not a real issue with her.
hd radio well just may be...
but then again only time will tell ~ RHF
.
.
. .
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
OK, I went to radio-locator.com and found that there are 16 AM stations
with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and I pickup many
more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles north of LA.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Kim Komando - America's digital ditz on the radio. Can't expect anything
more out a blond I guess.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield->
> with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and I pickup many
> more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles north of LA.
The radio-locator maps are labeled "for amusement purposes only."
Listening of a quantifiable (as opposed to "occasional") nature occurs about
20% INSIDE the innermost red contour in radio-locator. This is proven in
market after market, on AM and FM, based on overlaying listening maps on
coverage contours.
While you can "hear" many stations if you set out to find them, the average
listener does not put up with anything but a strong, interference free
signal... that means about 10 mv/m or more in a metro on AM and about 64 dbu
on FM.
Ventura / Oxnard is not even a top 100 market, anyway. But not a single one
of the local stations (KOXR having the best signal day and night) even
covers, usefully, 50% of the county.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield->
> with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and I pickup many
> more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles north of LA.
In ZIP Code 9303 there are only 4 AM stations that put a 10 mv/m or stronger
over the area... 1590, 1520, 910 and 1450.
Between 5 mv/m and 10, there are three: 1400 from Santa Paula and KFI and
KNX from LA, brought in mostly by the nice salt water path.
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
The example you made of KOXR is deceptive. Inland is sparsely populated
being mountainous or farmland with most people living near the coast.
These 16 AM stations are moderately strong to very strong. They all come
in interference free on the home and car radios. I don't put up with
noise and interference either. I'm 60 miles north of one of the big
markets. Try again.
I don't have a problem getting many weaker stations either except when a
station running that digital crap covers them up.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
I'm in 93001. Yes Goleta to San Diego daytime stations are very strong.
Nightime is also good except when I get that phase cancelation of sky
and ground wave, which is solved with the sync. The car radio does not
have that so at times nigh time reception can suck in the car.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>
> The example you made of KOXR is deceptive. Inland is sparsely populated
> being mountainous or farmland with most people living near the coast.
It is still part of the market, as sparsely populated as it may be.
>
> These 16 AM stations are moderately strong to very strong. They all come
> in interference free on the home and car radios. I don't put up with
> noise and interference either. I'm 60 miles north of one of the big
> markets. Try again.
Sorry, but extensive research on literally hundreds of thousands of
individual listeners shows that outside the 10 mv/m in medium metros and
ever greater signals in big ones, there is essentially no listening to AM
stations.
>
> I don't have a problem getting many weaker stations either except when a
> station running that digital crap covers them up.
Yeah, I can often get Kota Kinabalu on 1475... that does not mean anyone
listens to them in LA.
Listening and the ability to hear a station are very different.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
Same thing. 910, 1590 and 1450 are the only stations with day and night
signals over 10 mv/m in your ZIP Code.
You get 1250 from Santa Barbara, KSPN from LA and KNX between 5 mv/m and 10
mv/m. The rest are below 5 mv/ m.
As I said, it has been proven hundreds of thousands of times that
essentially nobody listens outside those contours.
Brenda Ann
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> For example, Washington DC does not have one viable AM station. Phoenix
>> has
>> two. Boston has, maybe, 3. Philadelphia has 3. Miami has one, and that is
>> a
>> stretch. Denver has 2. Chicago has 5, San Francisco has 4, San Diego has
>> 2,
>> Dallas / Ft Worth has 3, Houston has, barely, 1, Pittsburgh has 1,
>> Atlanta
>> has 1, Nashville has 1, Detroit has 2, etc., etc. As markets grow more
>> and
>> more to the suburbs, fewer and fewer stations are going to be viable.
>
> OK, I went to radio-locator.com and found that there are 16 AM stations
> with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and I pickup many
> more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles north of LA.
>
> --
> Telamon
> Ventura, California
Now Telemon, you KNOW he doesn't want to hear facts, he wants to live in his
little dream world where everything is just as he thinks it is.
There is hardly an AM station in the Portland, OR market that doesn't cover
the entire market in the daytime. Many of them (620, 750, 910, 970, 1080,
1190, 1520) cover a much larger area. 620, 750 and 1190 are heard from
Longview, WA to past Salem, OR. 620, 1080 and 1190 are heard pretty well on
the coast as well. And I'm not talking DX'ing, I used to listen to them on a
pocket transistor radio. The weakest signal of all in the area is 1230 in
Gresham, but even they had a good daytime signal as far as the west hills,
about 15 miles from their tower. 1390 in Salem is heard well in most of the
south end of Portland, and they're only 1KW. When I worked for Entercom, I
put up a directional loop on their studio building in SW Portland so they
could null out 1410, which was only a mile or so away. This was so they
could monitor the result of the microwave feed they were sending down there.
What was at the time 930 KSWB in Seaside was the most popular station in
Astoria, 21 miles away, against the two local Astoria stations. He's full
of crap when he says that nobody listens outside the market/local urban
area. That they don't show up in Arbitron is most likely a factor of
Arbitron not bothering with logging outside the primary signal.
And let's talk about FM's for just a second. A Salem station on 105.3 used
to be heard over most of Portland. They decided to up their audience a
little bit by moving their tower site to a point between Portland and Salem,
off to the east a bit from both, and now they're considered a city grade
contour for both cities and most places in between on the I-5 corridor. They
can be heard on a car stereo solidly as far south as Eugene. Basically what
they did to the station was turned it from a Salem local to a rimshotter and
made a big success of it.
Turn off the QRM, Gleason... we don't need it, don't want it. All it does is
cause problems for people who aren't inside your precious 'city grade
contour'.. and guy, that's a LOT of people. And we buy things. WE COUNT.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
Often? I realize they are probably running 700 kW or so, but *often*?
The guys in Grayland will be impressed.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
You really need to lose the numbers, pal. People listen to signals
where they can get them, even if Arbitron doesn't care about them.
The FCC is supposed to protect their service, not help you make more
money.
David Eduardo
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:45F679A8...@milestones.com...
Even back when I lived in Phoenix in the 70's, 1475 was the bellwether
station for openings to the Pacific. I would say that in the September to
May period, it was detectable at least 75% of nights, and readable half of
those.
On the coast, it's so regular I don't keep track.
This is somewhat tike 935 from Morocco in the 60's in the East and
near-Midwest. Hearing it was no more unusual than haring WSM, and a good
indication of conditions in the Mediterranean: it was 24/7 for Ramadan,
meaning you could use it to predict reception of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the
northern Africans in general, as well as Spain and Portugal.
Similarly, in the 60's in the East, KORL on 650 around 2 to 3 AM EST was an
indication of the potential for Australia and NZ reception.
You obviously do not know much about MW DX, or you would know that 1475 is
so common it has near-pest status.
David Eduardo
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:ppbdv29usqe7fs2v9...@4ax.com...
A. Arbitron shows whatever people say they listen to, irrespective of where
they are.
B. The signals you are griping about are outside the protected contours, and
have no guarantee of lack of interference.
C. Commercial radio only exists in the US because stations make money. If
they did not, you would have a choice of religious stations and NPR.
Eric F. Richards
*applause*
(Quoted in its entirety intentionally.)
--
Eric F. Richards, efr...@dim.com
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser
David Eduardo
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
news:et5q5q$7sa$1...@news2.kornet.net...
>
>
> Now Telemon, you KNOW he doesn't want to hear facts, he wants to live in
> his little dream world where everything is just as he thinks it is.
Unfortunately for this conclusion, there is a wealth of data which supports
my position and none supporting yours.
>
> There is hardly an AM station in the Portland, OR market that doesn't
> cover the entire market in the daytime.
Of course, my definition of an AM station being viable states that the
station must cover the entire market day and night. This is also the
standard definiton of broadcast analysts, appraisers and the industry in
general.
> Many of them (620, 750, 910, 970, 1080, 1190, 1520) cover a much larger
> area.
910, 1520 and 1080 do not cover the entire market at night, and 750 is
marginal.
In a northern latitude market, where for much of the year night ends several
hours into morning drive and starts well befor ethe end of afternoon drive,
not having night coverage of the whole market is mortal to a station.
> 620, 750 and 1190 are heard from Longview, WA to past Salem, OR. 620, 1080
> and 1190 are heard pretty well on the coast as well. And I'm not talking
> DX'ing, I used to listen to them on a pocket transistor radio.
Salem is not in the metro, nor is Longview. The real issue is if they give a
suable and useful signal in the market... one that overcomes the manmade
noise 95% or more of the time in all the metro.
> What was at the time 930 KSWB in Seaside was the most popular station in
> Astoria, 21 miles away, against the two local Astoria stations. He's full
> of crap when he says that nobody listens outside the market/local urban
> area. That they don't show up in Arbitron is most likely a factor of
> Arbitron not bothering with logging outside the primary signal.
Actually, Arbitron "logs" nothing. Listeners write in whatever they listen
to, with no restrictions whatsoever. In fact the instructions say to write
down anything that "you listen to" on the radio, including satellite and
internet stations.l The Arbitron report shows "below the line" (a term
meaning not licensed in the metro) listening, but it is so minimal that you
don't see out of market stations ranked.
For all practical purposes, out of market listening is so minimal,
individually and collectively as to not be statistically significant or
reliable.
>
> And let's talk about FM's for just a second. A Salem station on 105.3
> used to be heard over most of Portland. They decided to up their audience
> a little bit by moving their tower site to a point between Portland and
> Salem, off to the east a bit from both, and now they're considered a city
> grade contour for both cities and most places in between on the I-5
> corridor. They can be heard on a car stereo solidly as far south as
> Eugene. Basically what they did to the station was turned it from a Salem
> local to a rimshotter and made a big success of it.
And that explains why it does not exist now?
>
> Turn off the QRM, Gleason... we don't need it, don't want it. All it does
> is cause problems for people who aren't inside your precious 'city grade
> contour'.. and guy, that's a LOT of people. And we buy things. WE COUNT.
Again, there is no evidence that significant listening occurs outside fairly
intense contours. And since AM is now so little used at all, trying
alternatives that may give it additional life make sense. Otherwise, AM will
simply disappear... as it already has as a relevant service for nearly
everyone under 45 or 50 years of age.
Being able to hear a station does not mean it will get actual listening.
Listening requires a combination of factors, including a solid signal. It
helps if you are also on FM, too.
dxAce
Just back from trying out for 'Prancing With the Stars', David Frackelton Gleason,
Pest status.... hmmmm, that seems to be what you've attained.
ROTFLMFAO at the fake Hispanic.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> "Telamon" <telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brenda Ann - you go get'em girl ! We sure do count, as that IBOC
shill is finding out, with few HD radios sold, and more-and-more
people complaining to people that count. I just complained to threee
AM stations today, in our area ! Let's get this bastard called, HD/
IBOC !
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
HD/IBOC is doomed, shit-ball !
Brenda Ann
> > And let's talk about FM's for just a second. A Salem station on 105.3
> > used to be heard over most of Portland. They decided to up their
> > audience
> > a little bit by moving their tower site to a point between Portland and
> > Salem, off to the east a bit from both, and now they're considered a
> > city
> > grade contour for both cities and most places in between on the I-5
> > corridor. They can be heard on a car stereo solidly as far south as
> > Eugene. Basically what they did to the station was turned it from a
> > Salem
> > local to a rimshotter and made a big success of it.
>
> And that explains why it does not exist now?
>
Actually, they DO still exist. There was a frequency realignment in the
region a while back, where stations were fudged a bit to allow addition of a
couple more stations into the crowded market (98.5 was moved to 98.7,
allowing a new station on 97.9, 105.3 moved to 105.1 to make room for a new
station on 105.9) Man, RadioLocator is out of date for the area....
David Eduardo
KRSK's CP pretty much city--grades the market on 105.1; the old facility
with the site in the vicinity of Silverton missed about 40% of the market on
t he 70 dbu.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
Pest status... indeed.
David
<amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>C. Commercial radio only exists in the US because stations make money. If
>they did not, you would have a choice of religious stations and NPR.
>
Ma and Pa operations can make money on stations that big-ass
corporations cannot. That was the beauty of Pre-Reagan broadcasting:
diversity.
BTW, I see your company ate a big shit sandwich today.
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > The example you made of KOXR is deceptive. Inland is sparsely populated
> > being mountainous or farmland with most people living near the coast.
>
> It is still part of the market, as sparsely populated as it may be.
I thought the scattered few don't matter in your world.
> > These 16 AM stations are moderately strong to very strong. They all come
> > in interference free on the home and car radios. I don't put up with
> > noise and interference either. I'm 60 miles north of one of the big
> > markets. Try again.
>
> Sorry, but extensive research on literally hundreds of thousands of
> individual listeners shows that outside the 10 mv/m in medium metros and
> ever greater signals in big ones, there is essentially no listening to AM
> stations.
I don't know what to say about your perverted market research being
contrary to my experience. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. You keep
saying that if a AM station does not have a strong signal then people
will not listen to it and then follow that up with there are only two or
three stations that have that signal strength. Well I have at least 16
and I'm in the northern part of one of the biggest markets so you are
wrong. I don't give a dam about any volts per mete contour maps you
imagine seeing these signals are strong and noise is not an issue
hearing any of them.
> > I don't have a problem getting many weaker stations either except when a
> > station running that digital crap covers them up.
>
> Yeah, I can often get Kota Kinabalu on 1475... that does not mean anyone
> listens to them in LA.
>
> Listening and the ability to hear a station are very different.
If people are not listening to these strong stations it must be because
of the programming.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about. There are many more stations
that come in with very strong signals. There are at least 16 of them.
The signal strength meters of radio locator seem to be accurate. Go
ahead and try zip 93001.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> For example, Washington DC does not have one viable AM station.
> >> Phoenix has two. Boston has, maybe, 3. Philadelphia has 3. Miami
> >> has one, and that is a stretch. Denver has 2. Chicago has 5, San
> >> Francisco has 4, San Diego has 2, Dallas / Ft Worth has 3, Houston
> >> has, barely, 1, Pittsburgh has 1, Atlanta has 1, Nashville has 1,
> >> Detroit has 2, etc., etc. As markets grow more and more to the
> >> suburbs, fewer and fewer stations are going to be viable.
> >
> > OK, I went to radio-locator.com and found that there are 16 AM
> > stations with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and
> > I pickup many more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles
> > north of LA.
> >
>
> Now Telemon, you KNOW he doesn't want to hear facts, he wants to live in his
> little dream world where everything is just as he thinks it is.
< Snip >
Yeah, now he is telling me what I can hear based on some imaginary
contour maps.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
m II
I thought you gave up getting drunk in a public forum. Remember what you
did the last time you went on a binge? Let me remind you...
> Dear ace. I took the liberty of saving a few of your priceless and articulate comments, mainly from March 3 2007. Judging from your posts since then, I can only assume that you've sought and obtained professional help. Congratulations in your new found sobriety.
Keep up the good work.
mike
==================================================
Next time we come over the pond once again to save your sorry ass's
we'll have to dismantle that stuff.
Not at all, we are both Miami Indians... ya got a problem with that, boy?
Dey done unnerstannn that us nateev boyyys R real Mericans!
I get my ride be fixed, I be cruisin to be givin ya da shake, yu be
knowin, eh?
Fookin 'retard.
Fookin bustards! Like Edweenie!
Dem Canucky boyz are dumaz rasissts..
Eh? You sum dumass Canucuy bithyboy...
We gone be sen u to sumplac bad boy... u be so bad weben the reel
Canuckys won wan u.
Huh... you be just another stupid white boy outta Cleveland...
I suggest you get together with your "significant other" and bump butt
with each other,
Ya right, suck my dick...
Because I hate White Boy Canucks who suck cock...
Sorry, I'm not a racist like you, Edweenie...
You dumb sand niggers (sorry, I categorize ya all this way) need to
understand that you need to get your collective shit together...
Damn, the Canucky Niggah didn't have a damn thing to say...
Wonder why.... could it be that the Canucky Niggah is timid, afraid...?
Nah, he was fake little cock sucker like you!
Your pathological lying is an offense to me, and more than likely an
offense to God as well.
No medications here, cock sucker boy..
Come on now, you being a nice Liberal, Carbon Footprint, Al Gore, Cock
Sucking kinda Canuck Bastard..
I won R plantation up nord, dat dem dum ass Canuckys be oween us, ya be
'standin me?
CanaDuh is stupidity!
Stupid little pussy faggot!
Liar, liar, pantalunes on fire!
Mr. Edweenie, the forces of Good are gonna come visit your sorry fake
Hispanic White Boy Ass if you keep it up!
Pay attention, cock sucker...
LMFAO as I sit and look at my royalty cheques...
You've done this before, cock sucker...
Believe it, it's like a dream to be with you again...
I know it may be hard, but as you withdraw, it will shrink away..
LMFAO at yet another dumb friggin Canuck..
Oh damn, I guess we pissed another wanker off, Cuz..
Try again, shithead.....
If you'd like to call me, I'm here to help you until 0330 GMT at:
dxAce
Michigan
USA
I ain't white, but unlike you, I dislike no one...
Best you wake up soon... fookin retard leetle beetch..
It is then my patriotic friend, you must reach in the closet, place your
hands upon the weapon, and blow the cock sucking, bean blower back into
Mary's arms....
Indeed, I'm now at WAR with Canuckistan..
May the Great Spirit help the hapless bastards.
Actually VA facilities are quite good, but if you Canucky niggahs poke
around one might find a lot of things wrong.
At any rate, I'd bet it beats the Canucky Third World state of care...
CanaDuh sucks...
Wanna go to war, shit head?
Think you might win? Think you got a chance?
If you don't... I'd keep my fookin Canucky mouth shut, boy...
======================================================
m II
Please explain what you meant by:
=================================
I don't give a dam about any volts per mete contour maps you
imagine seeing these signals are strong and noise is not an issue
hearing any of them.
=================================
I'm sure it's not as confusing as is commonly thought.
mike
David Eduardo
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:00:22 -0700, "David Eduardo"
> <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>
>>C. Commercial radio only exists in the US because stations make money. If
>>they did not, you would have a choice of religious stations and NPR.
>>
> Ma and Pa operations can make money on stations that big-ass
> corporations cannot. That was the beauty of Pre-Reagan broadcasting:
> diversity.
Pre deregulation, half of US stations did not make money.
>
> BTW, I see your company ate a big shit sandwich today.
No, it did not.
Telamon
Why are you confused. David says that I can only get a few stations with
a strong signal based on some volts per meter contour maps on those
stations antenna patterns. Well his information is incorrect.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <bmrJh.7672$FG1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:telamon_spamshield-8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > The example you made of KOXR is deceptive. Inland is sparsely populated
>> > being mountainous or farmland with most people living near the coast.
>>
>> It is still part of the market, as sparsely populated as it may be.
>
> I thought the scattered few don't matter in your world.
>
>> > These 16 AM stations are moderately strong to very strong. They all
>> > come
>> > in interference free on the home and car radios. I don't put up with
>> > noise and interference either. I'm 60 miles north of one of the big
>> > markets. Try again.
>>
>> Sorry, but extensive research on literally hundreds of thousands of
>> individual listeners shows that outside the 10 mv/m in medium metros and
>> ever greater signals in big ones, there is essentially no listening to AM
>> stations.
>
> I don't know what to say about your perverted market research being
> contrary to my experience.
This is not market research of some unknown brand. It is the analysis by ZIP
Code and signal strength of what gets listening and what does not. Smaller
signals get no significant diary mentions.
> Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. You keep
> saying that if a AM station does not have a strong signal then people
> will not listen to it and then follow that up with there are only two or
> three stations that have that signal strength.
And those are the only AMs that get any significant listening in your ZIP
Code. Bingo.
> Well I have at least 16
> and I'm in the northern part of one of the biggest markets so you are
> wrong. I don't give a dam about any volts per mete contour maps you
> imagine seeing these signals are strong and noise is not an issue
> hearing any of them.
You are in market 120, which is hardly big.. And wherever you are,
significant listening is only given to stations with big, listenable
signals.
Yet, in your ZIP code, in home listening to anything but the big signals is
nearly non-existent.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
Correlation of ZIP codes where in home listening is reported to Arbitron
with signal strength shows that in larger metros, there is nearly no
listening to AMs outside the 10 mv/m contour, and I told you already how
many staitons have that strength at your approximate location.
>There are many more stations
> that come in with very strong signals. There are at least 16 of them.
> The signal strength meters of radio locator seem to be accurate. Go
> ahead and try zip 93001.
Radio Locator labels itself for amusement only. There is a reason... I use
a professional broadcast mapping program and can see the signal strengths at
any ZIP easily. There are 3 10 mv/m or better signals. That's all.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of
each station.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Why are you confused. David says that I can only get a few stations with
> a strong signal based on some volts per meter contour maps on those
> stations antenna patterns.
I did not say you can not "get" more stations. I said that there will be no
significant listening to stations that do not have a very strong signal, and
this is proven by where each staiton is actually listened to. One thing is
to hear a station (I can hear XEW in Mexico City right now on 900 AM, mixed
with several other stations. I would not want to listen to it, though) and
one is to be able to regularly listen with no interference and noise. You
may put up with crappy signals, but the average listener to radio will not.
>Well his information is incorrect.
>
The info comes from the FCC.
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in
> message
> news:telamon_spamshield-9...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy
Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty. I have many
stations, on the order of sixteen, that have very strong signals. Noise
is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through your
skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself.
The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard,
Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego.
There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake.
Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
David Eduardo
I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Yeah, now he is telling me what I can hear based on some imaginary
>> > contour maps.
>>
>> ... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal
>> protection of each station.
>
> Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty.
The information is composed of two parts.
1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code.
2. Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering software, based
on FCC licence values, ground condutivity, tc.
> I have many
> stations, on the order of sixteen, that have very strong signals.
But only 3 put a 10 mv/m signal over your ZIP. Analysis of AM staitons by
listening location shows that below that level in populated metro areas,
there is, for all practical purposes, no listening.
> Noise
> is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through your
> skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself.
Why should I. I am capable of looking at the field strengths of each station
in your ZIP and knowing that no AM station with less than a 10 mv/m gets
significant in-home listening in that ZIP, I conclude that the general rule
about listening to weaker signals holds true, yet again.
>
> The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard,
> Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego.
Some in your ZIP have about 2 mv/m. As stated before, you may hear them if
you try, but "normal" radio listeners do not listen to them as they are not
stong enough to be usefully listenable.
>
> There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake.
> Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks.
But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are, buy no
strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant diary mentions
in your ZIP.
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
don't hold your breathe unless you are feeling suicidual
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
RHF
> "Telamon" <telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:telamon_spamshield-4...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <VaqJh.3862$Um6.2...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Telamon" <telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:telamon_spamshield->
> >> > OK, I went to radio-locator.com and found that there are 16 AM stations
> >> > with moderate to very strong signal levels in my area and I pickup many
> >> > more during the daytime in my small town 60 miles north of LA.
>
> >> stronger
> >> over the area... 1590, 1520, 910 and 1450.
>
> >> Between 5 mv/m and 10, there are three: 1400 from Santa Paula and KFI and
> >> KNX from LA, brought in mostly by the nice salt water path.
>
> > I'm in 93001. Yes Goleta to San Diego daytime stations are very strong.
> > Nightime is also good except when I get that phase cancelation of sky
> > and ground wave, which is solved with the sync. The car radio does not
> > have that so at times nigh time reception can suck in the car.
>
> Same thing. 910, 1590 and 1450 are the only stations with day and night
> signals over 10 mv/m in your ZIP Code.
>
> You get 1250 from Santa Barbara, KSPN from LA and KNX between 5 mv/m and 10
> mv/m. The rest are below 5 mv/ m.
>
- that essentially nobody listens outside those contours.
DE,
There is the old 80% / 20% Rule which is most likely
what you are talking about : You can spend 20% of
the Cost and get 80% of the "Potential" Radio Listeners
'with-in' the Contours -or- You can spend 80% (4X) of
the Cost and get the remaining 20% of the "Potential"
Radio Listeners out-side' the Contours.
* This does not mean that the 'other' 20% are not vailid
"Potential" Radio Listeners 'out-side' the Contours.
* Simply means that the 20% of "Potential" Radio
Listeners 'out-side' the Contours are not Cost Effective
as a Business Objective.
* The Out-Side 20% are Too Costly of a Market to Sell.
Liars - Damn Liars -and- Those Who Use Numbers . . .
Too Misstate the Facts {Truth} !
numb3rs are not necessarily facts ~ RHF
.
.
. .
dxAce
m II wrote:
> I thought you gave up getting drunk in a public forum.
I thought you gave up being a dumbass Canuck in a public forum, boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
We're certainly waiting for a LOT of your lies to be retracted.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
<amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
News Update - Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tough day for Spanish Broadcasting System.
The stock's down about 10% as investors absorb the 9% drop in fourth
quarter radio revenue and Raul Alarcon's first-quarter guidance for "a
decrease in the mid-single digit range." COO Marko Radlovic says "the
big disconnect" is in national revenues and they're working on it with
Interep. Alarcon assures analysts SBS can weather recent morning-show
defections in New York and Miami.
-insideradio
David
<amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>Radio Locator labels itself for amusement only. There is a reason... I use
>a professional broadcast mapping program and can see the signal strengths at
>any ZIP easily. There are 3 10 mv/m or better signals. That's all.
>
That is such BS. Perhaps it works on the prairies but here in Cali,
with undulating terra firma, the field strength can vary wildly over a
given Zip Code.
David
<amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of
>each station.
>
The fictional 50/50 charts? What about Longley Rice?
David Eduardo
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1173855104.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> There is the old 80% / 20% Rule which is most likely
> what you are talking about : You can spend 20% of
> the Cost and get 80% of the "Potential" Radio Listeners
> 'with-in' the Contours -or- You can spend 80% (4X) of
> the Cost and get the remaining 20% of the "Potential"
> Radio Listeners out-side' the Contours.
> * This does not mean that the 'other' 20% are not vailid
> "Potential" Radio Listeners 'out-side' the Contours.
> * Simply means that the 20% of "Potential" Radio
> Listeners 'out-side' the Contours are not Cost Effective
> as a Business Objective.
> * The Out-Side 20% are Too Costly of a Market to Sell.
Actually, it is generally not more than a percent or two of in-home
listening that takes place outside those contours.
David Eduardo
Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that
company.
Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a
little better.
David Eduardo
Most populated ZIPs are quite small, and you can easily do averaging. In
most cases, this is so close to the extremes as to be totally useful. Since
radio ratings are done to the ZIP Code level, the exercise is eminently
practical.
David Eduardo
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:54:46 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>
>>... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of
>>each station.
>>
> The fictional 50/50 charts?
No, just calculated (not measured) field strenght based on FCC ground
conductivity charts and the distance form the transmitter
>What about Longley Rice?
That is for FM. There is no terrain blockage on AM...
Get your bands straight.
David
You work for Walter? For the Liebermans?
David Eduardo
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:04 GMT, "David Eduardo"
>
>
> >Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that
> >company.
>
> >Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a
> >little better.
>
> You work for Walter? For the Liebermans?
This fucking IBOC shill works for Univision - they pay him to post on
blogs 24/7:
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> "David" <rick...@knac.com> wrote in message
WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7
http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm
Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked
#1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your shit sandwich, IBOC
shill !
David Eduardo
<AnotherBo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173884186.0...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 2:43?am, "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted.
<WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
<WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
<WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
<WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
<WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
<WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
<WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
<WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
<KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
<KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7
<Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked
<#1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your shit sandwich, IBOC
<shill !
Being #1 in 12+ (everyone from pre-teen to death) is meaningless. That's why
these numbers are given away for free.
Advertisers don't even look at 12+ numbers.
What is important for radio sales is the number of listeners in the ages
advertisers care about, generally (about 85% of buys) in 25-54 and somewhat
in 18-34 (plus all the subsets).
You will find that all the stations you listed do nowhere nearly as well in
25-54, and do horribly in 18-34 and 18-44. WGN, for example, is not even in
the top 15 stations in Chicago in 25-54 and the others fare similarly in the
"sales demos."
As said before, this is why stations like WTOP moved from AM to FM totally,
and ones like KSL are simulcasting with FM to pick up younger listeners.
David Eduardo
It's "Liberman" by the way.
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
> <AnotherBogusAcco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As I said before - AM radio is not dying, and I'll let you know, when
all AMs go dark.
AnotherBo...@yahoo.com
BTW - there is no consumer interest for HD Radio.
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-9...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, now he is telling me what I can hear based on some imaginary
> >> > contour maps.
> >>
> >> ... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal
> >> protection of each station.
> >
> > Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty.
>
> The information is composed of two parts.
>
> 1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code.
> 2. Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering software, based
> on FCC licence values, ground condutivity, tc.
Must be a piece of crap software you use.
> > I have many stations, on the order of sixteen, that have very
> > strong signals.
>
> But only 3 put a 10 mv/m signal over your ZIP. Analysis of AM staitons by
> listening location shows that below that level in populated metro areas,
> there is, for all practical purposes, no listening.
>
> > Noise is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through
> > your skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself.
>
> Why should I.
Because your data is wrong and you base your conclusions of false facts.
> I am capable of looking at the field strengths of each station
> in your ZIP and knowing that no AM station with less than a 10 mv/m gets
> significant in-home listening in that ZIP, I conclude that the general rule
> about listening to weaker signals holds true, yet again.
Bad data, incorrectly interpreting that data leads to wrong conclusions.
> > The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard,
> > Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego.
>
> Some in your ZIP have about 2 mv/m. As stated before, you may hear them if
> you try, but "normal" radio listeners do not listen to them as they are not
> stong enough to be usefully listenable.
No trying need since they are strong signals. No problem getting them on
the home radio, portable, or car radio.
> > There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake.
> > Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks.
>
> But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are, buy no
> strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant diary mentions
> in your ZIP.
Something is wrong with your data or calculations.
You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know
where you are going wrong but you should find out.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Brenda Ann
>
> You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know
> where you are going wrong but you should find out.
>
> --
He really just doesn't care, and chooses instead to live in his little world
of unreality. Maybe this is why radio is dying? The people in the industry
don't want to listen to what real people have to say. Anyone who has a
brain knows that ratings are not real. People are creatures of habit.. they
tend to leave the TV on the same channel most of the time, ditto the radio..
for most, radio is just background noise, something to keep the silence from
making them crazy(ier).
Not all of us out here listen to your top 2 stations in a market. Have
Arbitron send me or any of my friends (even the ones that are in major
metros) a diary.. and you'll see that there is a significant portion of the
public with very much different listening habits than your hand-picked and
sorted ratings group.
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <j9LJh.3110$Qw....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty.
>>
>> The information is composed of two parts.
>>
>> 1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code.
>> 2. Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering software,
>> based
>> on FCC licence values, ground condutivity, tc.
>
> Must be a piece of crap software you use.
It's the most used software for both vieweing existing operations and for
creating applications for new stations. It gives very precise contours per
the FCC rules, although I used the option to do signal averaging for a ZIP
Code since the data I am referencing to, Arbitron listening, can be broken
into ZIP Codes also.
>
>>
>> > Noise is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through
>> > your skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself.
>>
>> Why should I.
>
> Because your data is wrong and you base your conclusions of false facts.
The data comes from the FCC... including the licensed operation (antenna
efficiency, directional pattern, transmitter location) and the "official"
FCC ground condutivity data to determine attenuation over a determined path
>
>> I am capable of looking at the field strengths of each station
>> in your ZIP and knowing that no AM station with less than a 10 mv/m gets
>> significant in-home listening in that ZIP, I conclude that the general
>> rule
>> about listening to weaker signals holds true, yet again.
>
> Bad data, incorrectly interpreting that data leads to wrong conclusions.
The fact is, whether it is in Ventura or Lares, Puerto Rico, listening to
AMs below certain strong signal strengths is nearly non-existent and
statistically close to zero.
>
>> > The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura,
>> > Oxnard,
>> > Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego.
>>
>> Some in your ZIP have about 2 mv/m. As stated before, you may hear them
>> if
>> you try, but "normal" radio listeners do not listen to them as they are
>> not
>> stong enough to be usefully listenable.
>
> No trying need since they are strong signals. No problem getting them on
> the home radio, portable, or car radio.
Yet listeners do not listen to them when the signal is below 10 mv/m in your
ZIP code.
>
>> > There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake.
>> > Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks.
>>
>> But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are, buy no
>> strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant diary
>> mentions
>> in your ZIP.
>
> Something is wrong with your data or calculations.
My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your ZIP
code, correlated with actual signal strength there.
>
> You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know
> where you are going wrong but you should find out.
>
The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there is
seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.
David Eduardo
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
news:etaahs$rfs$1...@news2.kornet.net...
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-A...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know
>> where you are going wrong but you should find out.
>>
>> --
>
> He really just doesn't care, and chooses instead to live in his little
> world of unreality. Maybe this is why radio is dying? The people in the
> industry don't want to listen to what real people have to say.
That's pretty funny. I am in the "intermission" of a research project to
find out what a sample of over 100 listeners to one of our LA stations
thinks, likes, dislikes and wants.
And, while the average listening per person in the US is around 19 hours a
week, our listeners use about 24 hours of radio a week. And the time spent
with our stations is as much as 50% higher than the time spent listening to
general market stations.
> Anyone who has a brain knows that ratings are not real.
And this would explain why the ad industry uses them to place about $21
billion dollars in radio advertising a year.
Given the amount of money that can be spent on sales research (Arbitron,
Tapscan, Scarborough, etc) the samples are sufficient to quite accurately
detedrmine the number of listeners per station, per time period, etc.
The test of any research is whether it can be replicated (the same results
with a different sample of the same characteristics) and MRC supervised
tests have shown Arbitron data has a high degree of replicability.
> People are creatures of habit.. they tend to leave the TV on the same
> channel most of the time, ditto the radio.. for most, radio is just
> background noise, something to keep the silence from making them
> crazy(ier).
Of couse, this is not true. The average person listens to about 5 to 6
different stations a week, and knows which ones satisfy different needs or
moods.
>
> Not all of us out here listen to your top 2 stations in a market. Have
> Arbitron send me or any of my friends (even the ones that are in major
> metros) a diary.. and you'll see that there is a significant portion of
> the public with very much different listening habits than your hand-picked
> and sorted ratings group.
Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit
dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro.
Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc.
based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and
annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true
random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias.
There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to
have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random.
And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the
next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic
measurement of a perfectly balanced sample.
David
David Eduardo
This is the best response you have ever posted.
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in
> message
> news:telamon_spamshield-A...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy
> .com...
> > In article <j9LJh.3110$Qw....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "David
> > Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty.
> >>
> >> The information is composed of two parts.
> >>
> >> 1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code. 2.
> >> Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering
> >> software, based on FCC licence values, ground condutivity, tc.
> >
> > Must be a piece of crap software you use.
>
> It's the most used software for both vieweing existing operations and
> for creating applications for new stations. It gives very precise
> contours per the FCC rules, although I used the option to do signal
> averaging for a ZIP Code since the data I am referencing to, Arbitron
> listening, can be broken into ZIP Codes also.
So how are you misusing it then?
Sounds like a false assumption.
> >> > There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods
> >> > sake. Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks.
> >>
> >> But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are,
> >> buy no strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant
> >> diary mentions in your ZIP.
> >
> > Something is wrong with your data or calculations.
>
> My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your
> ZIP code, correlated with actual signal strength there.
So what is wrong with your data then?
> > You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know
> > where you are going wrong but you should find out.
> >
>
> The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there
> is seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.
Somehow you have misinterpreted the data.
Somehow you are going wrong here. What do you think the problem might be?
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
David Eduardo
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <bW2Kh.6940$yW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
, ground condutivity, tc.
>> >
>> > Must be a piece of crap software you use.
>>
>> It's the most used software for both vieweing existing operations and
>> for creating applications for new stations. It gives very precise
>> contours per the FCC rules, although I used the option to do signal
>> averaging for a ZIP Code since the data I am referencing to, Arbitron
>> listening, can be broken into ZIP Codes also.
>
> So how are you misusing it then?
I am not misusing it. It's pretty easy to use even for a layman, and totally
simple for someone with an engineering background.
>>
>> Yet listeners do not listen to them when the signal is below 10 mv/m
>> in your ZIP code.
>
> Sounds like a false assumption.
It's been proven in every market Arbitron measures... in urban zones, there
is essentially no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.
.
>>
>> My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your
>> ZIP code, correlated with actual signal strength there.
>
> So what is wrong with your data then?
Nothing. In urban zones, there is no listening to speak of outside the 10
mv/m contour... in very noisy places like NY and LA, there is very little
outside the 15 mv/m curves.
>>
>> The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there
>> is seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.
>
> Somehow you have misinterpreted the data.
There is nothing to misinterpret. In your ZIP, no station with below a 10
mv/m get listening.
>
> Somehow you are going wrong here. What do you think the problem might be?
I know what the problem is... you are stubborn and do not understand that
few listeners are even interested in non-local stations, and when combined
with signals that are not reliable day and nigh and which can be subject to
interference, they don't listen to them.
dxAce
Continuing with the info-mercial, David Frackelton Gleason, who poses as
The real problem is that you, Edweenie, don't realize that you are posting in
what is ostensibly a *hobby* news group, where folks actually *do* listen to
things that fall outside of the parameters of your little fantasy world.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Radiola
> David Eduardo,
>
> OK -if- we look at the last FCC Data for AM and FM
> Broadcast Radio Station Totals :http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt061231.html#START
> Total AM Radio Stations = 4,754
> Total FM Radio Stations = 6,266
> Total FM {Educational} PBS/NPR Radio Stations = 2,817
> GRAND TOTAL FOR RADIO = 13,837
>
> Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
> AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
> Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
> the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
> * This would create "Space-and-Distance" within the
> AM/MW Radio Band for those wider "HD" AM Radio
> Signals and their Adjacent Channel Digial Noise.
>
> Why Not - Expand the FM Band to cover 76 MHz to 88 MHz
> to create and additional 60 Channels for most of the AM/MW
> Radio Stations to transition to -and- Clear-Out the AM/MW
> Band except for about 250 National and Regional Clear
> Channel AM "HD" Radio Stations.
>
> Again -IMHO- You have proven the case for FM "HD" Radio
> as a Long Term Business Strategy -and- You have shown
> that AM "HD" Radio is a short term business strategy that
> at best is only buying time for Corporations to Divest them
> selves of what will become an every dimishing market while
> their FM Radio Business is Growing and Expanding.
>
> "HD" {Digital-IBOC} AM/MW Radio only makes long term
> business sense when there are fewer AM/MW Radio Stations
> that are in-fact Clear Channels and Powerful enough to
> cover Large Regions of the Country Day-and-Night. This
> can only happen with a reduction in the number of AM/MW
> Radio Stations and Greater Separtation : Frequency and
> Distance between the Radio Stations : 10 kHz and 100
> Miles needs to be expanded to 20-30 kHz and 250+ Miles.
>
> Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
> Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
> Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
> 'closed' Clear Channel.
>
> or better yet - why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
> - - - Leave AM Radio Alone :o) ~ RHF
> .
> .
> . .
> On Mar 10, 9:24 am, "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:1173515484....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Long Term IBOC FM "HD" Radio would give them :
> > > 1 - Better Overall Local Market Signal Coverage
> > > 2 - Better Sound Quality and the 'option' for a
> > > Second Audio {Data} Channel.
> > > 3 - Plus Younger Listener Demographics
> > > - - - So . . . Why Waste the Time, Money and
> > > Technology on IBOC AM "HD" Radio which as
> > > you admit is at best a short term lossing game.
>
> > There is a real simple reason and that is based on the fact that nearly all
> > broadcast companies are publicly held. Moving a big n/t station to FM and
> > abandoning the AM to a lesser format would require a write-down of the book
> > asset value of the property, which would affect earnings.
>
> > Bonneville, held by the LDS, can afford to do this kind of dramatic move.
> > Most of the rest will have to slowly move to simulcasts and gradual
> > adjustments in the values of assets, rather than just pulling the lug; HD
> > may offer some alternatives, such as niche music formats, too... it is a
> > hedge play... and for a big AM, not particularly expensive. As an example,
> > changing a 50 kw AM in LA to HD with a brand new transmitter is less than
> > $250,000 in a market where bigger stations typically bill $40 million to $60
> > million a year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The stupidest idea I've heard in ions.
D Peter Maus
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <bW2Kh.6940$yW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote:
> , ground condutivity, tc.
>>>> Must be a piece of crap software you use.
>>> It's the most used software for both vieweing existing operations and
>>> for creating applications for new stations. It gives very precise
>>> contours per the FCC rules, although I used the option to do signal
>>> averaging for a ZIP Code since the data I am referencing to, Arbitron
>>> listening, can be broken into ZIP Codes also.
>> So how are you misusing it then?
>
> I am not misusing it. It's pretty easy to use even for a layman, and totally
> simple for someone with an engineering background.
>>> Yet listeners do not listen to them when the signal is below 10 mv/m
>>> in your ZIP code.
>> Sounds like a false assumption.
>
> It's been proven in every market Arbitron measures... in urban zones, there
> is essentially no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.
Pardon me for butting into this love-fest, but let's try to
establish an understanding of what really are the objections here. And
why this exchange can get as heated as it does.
Start with the presentation of Dismissal. David, 'essentially none'
is not the same as 'none.' Just as statistical zero is not zero.
And what's been bandied about here, is the relative merits of simply
dismissing those numbers which don't fit a profile of behaviour mated to
a sales curve.
No one on either side of this discussion has suggested that 1) there
is zero listening outside the contours, nor that 2) what listening does
exist outside the contours is in mainstream numbers.
What's being objected to, David, is the abject dismissal of a body
of listeners for the simple reason that they don't fit into established
sales categories, or that they don't exist in numbers worthy of a
station's time.
There was a time that FCC protected the rights of listeners to
select the station of their choice no matter what, so that content,
local or not, that was available to the individual listener could be
heard, absent unavoidable interference from co- and adjacent channels.
What's so strenously objected to, here today, is that those listeners
are no longer considered. That a station in protecting it's sales curve,
may acceptably and with FCC blessing, create interference with stations
not in it's ADI. Removing from availability content that may simply not
be available anywhere else.
The presumption that all content that's local is desireable content
is false on it's face. As you've lived and worked in smaller markets,
you know that out of market listening is more common than in larger
markets because local content is of a lesser quality, or of a lesser
psychographic match to the listener. For instance....when I worked
evenings at KOEL-Oelwein, Iowa (77-78), my biggest competition was KWWL,
Waterloo. Followed very closely by WLS. Stuart's research arm noted
often that our local playlist was influenced by listening out of market,
and that songs that sold well, based on radio airplay were often songs
that were not being played in town. Or even, in state. Randy Newman's
"Short People" was the classic example. WLS and KWWL were on it. We were
not, nor was any local station available to the market. And yet, it was
the number one selling song in-market, and research indicated that those
sales were spurred by airplay.
Now, WLS listenership was not big in town. And KWWL listenership was
about 1/10th of our own, But it was not uncommon. And, content that was
available on WLS, was NOT available locally. Cutting off those listeners
for whatever reason, removed both their freedom of choice, as well as
their availability to information that was not available locally.
That didn't change the local sales strategy. And sales remained only
focussed within the contours, as you and I have delineated. But
listenership was NOT limited to the contours. And this was a phenomenon
that I have experienced in multiple markets.
WLS, WGN and WBBM were factors in Decatur, and Rockford, as well.
WGN was particularly strong in Rockford when I was at WROK. And our
daily RAM showed WGN consistently strong in Rockford, especially where
news was concerned, and WE were the local news leader, hands down.
But news content not available locally was daily picked up from WGN
and WBBM.
Today, IBOC hash from Chicago reaches into Rockford, Decatur and
some of Oelwein's listening area, affecting listenership in those
markets, by putting off content that is NOT available locally.
Hell, Steve's whole point about WBBM's IBOC hash is that it keeps
him from listening to HIS station of choice. Content that's not
available within his protected contour. What he's objecting to, here, as
are Brenda Ann, Eric Richards, Telamon and others (including myself) is
the ease with which we are dismissed as listeners, because we don't fit
into established cubbyholes based on map and Arbitron sales contours.
We count. We are big users of Radio. And we are not an insignificant
number. In aggregate, nationwide, we are a top 10 market. And yet, we
are dismissed, because we are not saleable locally. Even undesireable,
as Mark Byford so elegantly put it. No longer protected by the standards
of interference from FCC, or by standards of good practice established
by Radio's greatest practicioners.
We are dismissed. And we are dismissed with prejudice. And we don't
like it. We don't like having our choices limited. And we don't like
having our access to, sometimes, important information restricted by
cutting us off from sources where that information available.
Admit it or not, the homogenization of Radio is not complete. And
local news is both highly selective and highly edited. Just because the
same information is available to news organizations nationwide doesn't
make it available to local listeners everywhere the same. Just because
content is available to stations nationwide, doesn't make it available
to local listeners, everwhere the same. Rush is not locally available
everywhere. Neither is Liddy. Nor Dr Laura. And where, previously, a
little ingenuity and a piece of wire made content not locally available
accessible, now, that's not the case. And denial of this distinction is
at the heart of the hostility you've been the brunt of since this
discussion began.
Alternatives are available. Webcasting, for instance. I've moved to
satellite. And thousands of other orphaned listeners are now accessing
their content of choice from alternative sources, where they can.
Alternatives that take them away from Radio.
Statistically, they're zero. Essentially, there is no listening
where they are.
But "essentially none" none is not NONE. And "statistically zero" is
not ZERO. And you're not going to convince anyone here that they are.
Especially, in the effort to tell them that they don't matter, that
their freedom of choice is not important, and that they can always
access content locally. Because none of that is true.
And if you REALLY want to create allies, telling us how little we
matter, and using statistical renderings to do it, isn't the way.
The biggest problem that Americans have with the businesses they
have to interface every day, is that they are told in not so subtle
ways, with every transaction, that they don't matter. That they are only
numbers. That they are only ticks on a sales curve. And that their
complaints are simply not relevant.
As long as you continue to quote statistics, contour minima, and FCC
policy, you're assertions, here will not only fall on deaf ears, but
they will continue to ratchet up the ire of everyone so easily and
statistically dismissed. And you will be held in the same high esteem as
the asshole goat fuckers in boardrooms worldwide, who do business with a
nearly open contempt for their customers. You will continue to be the
face of "The Corporation." And this pissing match between your side and
ours will go on, without resolution.
But consider, that as a Program Director, you have the skills to not
only present your product in a venerable light, and do so while
listening to your listeners one on one, you have the experience and the
skills to make a personal "Lifetime Experience" contact with anyone
here. But as a Broadcaster, you have the talent and resources to change
the face of this discussion. To turn adversaries into allies.
To find a better way.
For this discussion, take a step back. Don't talk like a boardroom
weenie. Talk like a broadcaster. Listen like we're your listeners.
Communicate. One on one. As you and I have here on occasion. Listen to
what these people have to say. Don't be so quick to dismiss. Embrace. We
are all, here, potentially your biggest allies. And you treat us like
dog shit on the sole of your boot.
Find a better way.
David Peter Maus.
David Eduardo
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:45FA71EA...@milestones.com...
>
>
> The real problem is that you, Edweenie, don't realize that you are posting
> in
> what is ostensibly a *hobby* news group, where folks actually *do* listen
> to
> things that fall outside of the parameters of your little fantasy world.
>
The point is that the radio industry, both in the US and worldwide, is
changing. In the case of AM, it is trying to save itself... a task that may
not even be possible. DXers generally, in the past, have followed with
interest, the industry that produces the signals that are listened too. HD
is one of the changes that the industry has determined will help in the
future, and it is definitely here.
Next week, the FCC has the IBOC/HD issue on its agenda. They are expected to
remove the "experimental" STA for HD and authorize the system, and most
trade magazines and such believe night HD will also be authorized on the
theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people.
So it is obviously a hobby concern. And your R8B does not have HD!
Brenda Ann
"D Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:E4xKh.84147$as2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Find a better way.
>
>
>
>
> David Peter Maus.
>
Peter,
Nice way to express the way many of us here feel about the situation. Kudos
are in order for you.
He'd have to swing a LONG way the opposite direction to even get me to pay
attention at this point. I have been a long-time viewer of Univision and
Galavision television (until I moved here, where I have no access to them
(and technically, they are one and the same at this point, IIRC)), but
thanks to the intractible stubbornness of David Edurardo, their
representative (at least of their radio group, but a corporate
representative nonetheless), I will not bother to watch their television
outlets any longer. I never have listened to any of their radio outlets,
preferring instead to listen to small local Spanish outlets when I was in
that particular listening mood.
David Eduardo
"D Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:E4xKh.84147$as2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Actually, Arbitron establishes what they call Minimum Reporting Standards,
which is a requirement that any station to "be in the (ratings) book" must
register enough listening to be of statistical significance. This is, in
fact, a very tiny amount of listening, but it has to be by more than one
person and for more than just a few minutes. The objective is to eliminate
chance listening or listening _that occured while not even in the market_
that is not normal or replicable.
A station that gets some listening but does not make the book did not meet
the MRS; statistically it did not get listening because the MRS level was
established to only show replicable listening (same survey, done again, gets
equal results) as non-replicable listening is so minimal and so erratic as
to be considered nonexistent statistically.
>
> And what's been bandied about here, is the relative merits of simply
> dismissing those numbers which don't fit a profile of behaviour mated to a
> sales curve.
Out of the book listening is so far below salable numbers that it is
irrelevant. Most of it is a small cume number and a 0.0 in share. In most
markets, half the local staitons that do show up don't get any salable
results.
>
> No one on either side of this discussion has suggested that 1) there is
> zero listening outside the contours, nor that 2) what listening does exist
> outside the contours is in mainstream numbers.
You have boiled it down to the essence. Outside fairly strong contours,
stations do not get listening that is regular, of any significant size, and
of any value in serving because it is unpredictable, sporadic and mostly
"accidental" in nature.
>
> What's being objected to, David, is the abject dismissal of a body of
> listeners for the simple reason that they don't fit into established sales
> categories, or that they don't exist in numbers worthy of a station's
> time.
Since there are so very, very few listeners to AM outside the very strong
signal contours, the collective operators of AM have a choice... which is to
sacrifice this minimal and declining group of "outside" listeners for
something that may benefit AM, which is dying in revenue, audience and
commercial viabily. Station owners and operators, when faced with a
degradation that affects few listeners and improvements that may add t the
life and utility of AM go for the obvious alternative.
>
> There was a time that FCC protected the rights of listeners to select
> the station of their choice no matter what, so that content, local or not,
> that was available to the individual listener could be heard, absent
> unavoidable interference from co- and adjacent channels. What's so
> strenously objected to, here today, is that those listeners are no longer
> considered. That a station in protecting it's sales curve, may acceptably
> and with FCC blessing, create interference with stations not in it's ADI.
> Removing from availability content that may simply not be available
> anywhere else.
Of course, there were not 14,000 stations when skywave coverage was highly
protected. And people actually listened to AM at night, something they
hardly do today.
>
> The presumption that all content that's local is desireable content is
> false on it's face. As you've lived and worked in smaller markets, you
> know that out of market listening is more common than in larger markets
> because local content is of a lesser quality, or of a lesser psychographic
> match to the listener. For instance....when I worked evenings at
> KOEL-Oelwein, Iowa (77-78), my biggest competition was KWWL, Waterloo.
> Followed very closely by WLS. Stuart's research arm noted often that our
> local playlist was influenced by listening out of market, and that songs
> that sold well, based on radio airplay were often songs that were not
> being played in town. Or even, in state. Randy Newman's "Short People" was
> the classic example. WLS and KWWL were on it. We were not, nor was any
> local station available to the market. And yet, it was the number one
> selling song in-market, and research indicated that those sales were
> spurred by airplay.
I spent time outside Traverse City, MI, in the late 50's and early 60's and
listened to WLS. There was no local night AM service where I was, and no FM
at all. Today, there are 60 mv/m signals from about 18 FMs over the same
location. There is no need ot listen to distant stations, especially AMs
with their lousy sound quality.
>
> Now, WLS listenership was not big in town. And KWWL listenership was
> about 1/10th of our own, But it was not uncommon. And, content that was
> available on WLS, was NOT available locally. Cutting off those listeners
> for whatever reason, removed both their freedom of choice, as well as
> their availability to information that was not available locally.
The problem is that you are describi ng a time when AM had 95% of all
listening. Today, it has less than 20% and at night, less than about 10%.
And under age 45, it has less than 10%. Why? It really sounds crappy to the
most recent two generations, who do not use it.
>
> That didn't change the local sales strategy. And sales remained only
> focussed within the contours, as you and I have delineated. But
> listenership was NOT limited to the contours. And this was a phenomenon
> that I have experienced in multiple markets.
Historically, correct. But today, it is constantly decreasing and limited,
mostly to a few big AMs and to people over 55-. Radio can not sustain a
model of serving 55+ as there is no revenue in it.
>
> Today, IBOC hash from Chicago reaches into Rockford, Decatur and some
> of Oelwein's listening area, affecting listenership in those markets, by
> putting off content that is NOT available locally.
Well before IBOC, nobody much was listening to AM and no one under 45 was.
As I said, AM is dying and there is only a small chance it can be saved. HD
is one of the chances.
> Hell, Steve's whole point about WBBM's IBOC hash is that it keeps him
> from listening to HIS station of choice. Content that's not available
> within his protected contour. What he's objecting to, here, as are Brenda
> Ann, Eric Richards, Telamon and others (including myself) is the ease with
> which we are dismissed as listeners, because we don't fit into established
> cubbyholes based on map and Arbitron sales contours.
There are no "sales contours." What there are is contours below which there
is no listening of significance, and where the staition is not a factor.
> We count. We are big users of Radio. And we are not an insignificant
> number. In aggregate, nationwide, we are a top 10 market. And yet, we are
> dismissed, because we are not saleable locally. Even undesireable, as Mark
> Byford so elegantly put it. No longer protected by the standards of
> interference from FCC, or by standards of good practice established by
> Radio's greatest practicioners.
AM listening, itself, is shrinking horrendously and listening by the last
two generations of Americans to AM is practically non-existent. For most
people under 45, AM is irrelevant. In a few years, the band will not be
economically sustainable unless something is done.
>
> But "essentially none" none is not NONE. And "statistically zero" is
> not ZERO. And you're not going to convince anyone here that they are.
> Especially, in the effort to tell them that they don't matter, that their
> freedom of choice is not important, and that they can always access
> content locally. Because none of that is true.
Trying to serve that tiny, tiny group will kill AM radio.
>
> For this discussion, take a step back. Don't talk like a boardroom
> weenie. Talk like a broadcaster. Listen like we're your listeners.
> Communicate. One on one. As you and I have here on occasion. Listen to
> what these people have to say. Don't be so quick to dismiss. Embrace. We
> are all, here, potentially your biggest allies. And you treat us like dog
> shit on the sole of your boot.
I know what listeners say about AM... that it sucks, quality wise, no matter
what is on it. Unless, of course, they are in their 50's or more.
David Eduardo
>
> He'd have to swing a LONG way the opposite direction to even get me to pay
> attention at this point. I have been a long-time viewer of Univision and
> Galavision television (until I moved here, where I have no access to them
> (and technically, they are one and the same at this point, IIRC)), but
> thanks to the intractible stubbornness of David Edurardo, their
> representative (at least of their radio group, but a corporate
> representative nonetheless), I will not bother to watch their television
> outlets any longer. I never have listened to any of their radio outlets,
> preferring instead to listen to small local Spanish outlets when I was in
> that particular listening mood.
Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is absurd
>
dxAce
Continuing with the info-mercial, David Frackelton Gleason, who poses as
'Eduardo', and whose employer, Univision, has an interest in HD/IBOC, wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:45FA71EA...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > The real problem is that you, Edweenie, don't realize that you are posting
> > in
> > what is ostensibly a *hobby* news group, where folks actually *do* listen
> > to
> > things that fall outside of the parameters of your little fantasy world.
> >
>
> The point is that the radio industry, both in the US and worldwide, is
> changing. In the case of AM, it is trying to save itself... a task that may
> not even be possible. DXers generally, in the past, have followed with
> interest, the industry that produces the signals that are listened too. HD
> is one of the changes that the industry has determined will help in the
> future, and it is definitely here.
DXers interested in QRM, hmmmmmm...
Once again, the truth seems to elude you.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
What we have got here is a failure to communicate!
cuhulin
RHF
> "dxAce" <d...@milestones.com> wrote in message
DE Says - "night HD will also be authorized on the
theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people."
DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming
The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People
-ergo- DXers Be Damned !
DE So in your world the 'little guy'
[The Minority of Radio Listeners]
HAS NO RIGHTS [.]
Classical Liberal Thinking from the Champeon
of Spanish Language {Minority} Broadcasting.
it boggles the mind ~ RHF
.
.
. .
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>On Mar 16, 6:41 am, "David Eduardo" <amda...@pacbell.com> wrote:
>> "dxAce" <d...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>DE Says - "night HD will also be authorized on the
>theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people."
>
>DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming
>The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People
>-ergo- DXers Be Damned !
why do you expect otherwise
>
>DE So in your world the 'little guy'
>[The Minority of Radio Listeners]
>HAS NO RIGHTS [.]
you have the absoltute right to continue to persue your hobby with
just the added chalange of HD
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
RHF
> David Eduardo wrote:
> > "Telamon" <telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:telamon_spamshield-5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> In article <bW2Kh.6940$yW.4...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
DPM - hear, Hear. HEAR ! ~ RHF
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html
Well Said {Well Written}
.
.
. .
RHF
> "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
DE - You reply points out your Two Big Problem :
# 1 - The Certainty of Your Knowledge {Elitism}
# 2 - The Dismissive Attitude that you have for
Anyone who is Not Ratable and Salable.
Master D. Eduardo - Yours is a sad, Sad. SAD ! World ~ RHF
.
.
. .
dxAce
RHF wrote:
It's a fantasy world that he's been creating since he was 10 or so. 50 years of
fantasy!
Walt Disney would be proud.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David Eduardo
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1174086577.9...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> DE So in your world the 'little guy'
> [The Minority of Radio Listeners]
> HAS NO RIGHTS [.]
If AM does not survive (it IS dead for two generations of Americans) then it
won't matter much if you can't hear every AM on the dial... there won't be
any left.
>
> Classical Liberal Thinking from the Champeon
> of Spanish Language {Minority} Broadcasting.
I am probably more conservative politically than Genghis Kahn.
David Eduardo
Commercial radio sells sets of ears. If there are no ears, there are no
sales. If there are no sales, there is no commercial radio in the US. The
model has been about reaching listeners and selling their attention to
advertisers since the early 20's.
Brenda Ann
wrote:
> Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is
> absurd
And whom, might I ask, said anything at all about listening to a Univision
station in Oregon? Remember sky wave? We here take advantage of it a lot.
However, Portland has several Spanish language stations these days. I think
they may even have on on FM now, but not sure about that one.
David Eduardo
There is no Univision AM that has any chance of providing listenable skywave
to Oregon, either.
There is no commercial Spanish FM in Portland. There are 7 AMs in Spanish.
HFguy
>
> This is not market research of some unknown brand. It is the analysis by ZIP
> Code and signal strength of what gets listening and what does not. Smaller
> signals get no significant diary mentions.
How often do shortwave entries show up in the diaries?
HFguy
>
> Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit
> dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro.
> Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc.
> based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and
> annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true
> random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias.
>
> There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to
> have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random.
>
> And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the
> next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic
> measurement of a perfectly balanced sample.
I participated in an Arbitron radio survey many years ago. I was first
contacted by phone and they asked if I would be interested in keeping a
diary. I agreed and they sent the diary to me. The main problem I had
was I often don't listen to a station for more than a few seconds to see
if I like the music they're playing. If not, I move on to another
station. I don't listen to most commercials either, so that's another
reason for retuning. I do this a lot with FM. It's almost impossible to
enter this kind of listening into a survey diary. There would be
hundreds of entries in a day. Since I'm also an HF listener, I had to
enter the shortwave stations in the diary. I imagine they threw mine out
after they saw that.