Re: [Swprograms] Kim Andrew Elliott on VOA cuts

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I agree with the good doctor's commentary, I do see some flaws in
his logic.

First, he presumes that shortwave will be a useful option if it's needed one
day. To be useful, shortwave must a) reach its target audience, and b) be
receivable on they have. Those two criteria are always the very same areas
shortwave has been weak in forever. I mean, shortwave broadcasters have
never been able to compile credible statistics about their listening
audiences. I suppose that's just inherent to the medium, but it is also what
is driving shortwave listening to virtual extinction. Logic says that you're
going to catch hell trying to retain funding if you can't provide
solidly-based numbers about your audience. I sadly don't think shortwave
broadcasters realized just how important audience statistics were until the
early '90's, and it was already much too late by then.

You can bet your last dollar that consumer electronics companies know
exactly how many television sets are sold, and in which countries. Those
companies take delight in publishing that data because it shows how
successful they are. No such statistics were ever kept on the sales of
shortwave-capable radios. I guess you can chalk the omission up to an
earlier, less sophisticated era, but that lack of data now leaves
broadcasters with very little hard numbers to use in justify their budgets.

Another facet of Dr. Elliot's commentary that makes my teeth itch is the
supposition that shortwave can again be valuable in crisis areas if only
we'll maintain the physical plants. Maybe, but I find myself wondering about
the average life-span of a shortwave portable in your typical third-world
environment. They may be so cherished that they are pampered and last
forever. That might be the case, but I seriously doubt it. I think a more
likely scenario is that we would have saved expensive fixed-point
transmitter facilities to reach into a stricken area where few--if any--can
hear us. If it comes down to a choice between reaching a few radios or TVs,
the latter would probably give more information faster to the people who
need it the most.

I notice that most "radio people" still think in terms of fixed-point
operations. Where were they these last twenty years? These days, it's a lot
cheaper to pop a Commando Solo into wherever a RF presence is needed. We
have at one squadron of those puppies already, and they're pretty cheap to
buy and fly. The bulk of their budget just goes to program production costs.
The C-130s themselves are incredibly reliable, rugged, and downright miserly
on gas when asked to be. An added advantage is that signals from aircraft
(including TV signals) are much harder to jam effectively. Hell, I daresay
that even the Aussies and Kiwis could afford a few copies of a stripped-down
Commando Solo (without our onboard jammers and other spooky toys). 

By the way, I'm now listening to more "radio" than ever before. The only
differences are that the shows are now called "podcasts," and I listen at a
time of my choosing. If I get a bur up my ass, I can even listen to the BBC,
R. Australia, R. New Zealand, etc live via EVDO as I walk my dog.

(Easy John, don't cry. :)) 

-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:28 PM
To: softbulletin1@xxxxxxxxx; Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Kim Andrew Elliott on VOA cuts

Truer words were never spoken, IMHO.

Yes, there is a cost associated with maintaining a global shortwave  
service in English.  But no one here is arguing that such as service  
should be (or need be) maintained at the levels it was during the  
Cold War years (such as by using multiple frequencies and transmitter  
sites simultaneously) when shortwave was the only option for  
international broadcasting.  Outside of crisis times and crisis  
locales, single frequencies could be used to wide areas from close-in  
transmitter sites as a means of maintaining a minimal but consistent  
global presence and keeping key transmitter sites in strategic  
locations in good working order. Such a service also would serve a  
small, but arguably important (and grateful) audience traveling in  
remote areas (i.e: aid workers, expatriates, even vacationers).  Some  
transmitters and transmission sites could still be retired through  
careful planning and cooperation among "like-minded" nations that  
could be trusted not to interdict a client's transmissions.  All this  
could be done prudently at very low and reasonable cost if  
intelligently planned.

Television is desirable, but it is expensive and is very easy to  
interdict, as Dr. Elliott points out.  In the past, in the euphoria  
over "new things", the old tried and true time and time again has  
been initially discarded, only for the euphoric to learn that  
something has indeed been lost and that the tried and true still has  
usefulness, albeit in a changed role.  At the rate the IBB is closing  
down the tried and true, none of it will be left when that  
realization is inevitably reached.  Sort of like the trams  
(streetcars) of old in the U.S., which several cities are  
reintroducing now at substantial cost, after having literally ripped  
up the rails at the behest of the carmakers.

John Figliozzi

On May 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Mike Barraclough wrote:

> Commentary: At VOA, Less Shortwave = Less Global
>
> Sites Like the IBB Shortwave Facility At Kavala,
> Greece, Will Be Missed
>
> by Kim Andrew Elliott
>
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/ 
> 2006.05.10-05_rw_guest_voa.shtml
>
>
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all  
> new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@hard-core- 
> dx.com?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
shown above.


_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.