[BC] Looks like we got snookered!

Tue Jan 3 13:17:32 CST 2006

I think I'll drive up to Providence and verify that myself.

R

DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
> Nope. No fillers in RI. All satellite.
> 
> -D
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:05:34 AM PST
> From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
> To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Subject: Re: [BC] Looks like we got snookered!
> 
> Your XM likely has a nearby terrestrial fill. Your WIFI is going the 500 feet
> 
> you claim not 50 miles. Cordless is is a similar situation.   Now take a 
> centrally situated transmitter and duplicate FM over more than 50 miles, in
> the 
> real world it does not work. Eureka has not really done well except when used
> in 
> abandoned VHF TV channels.
> 
> R
> 
> DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
> 
>>Rob:
>>
>>I have a cell phone that's PLENTY sensitive! My XM radio works in the 2 gHz
>>band, cost me 25 bucks and is plenty sensitive too. Works in the house
> 
> without
> 
>>the antenna even being near a window!
>>
>>Wifi works in the 2 gHz band, is dirt cheap and plenty sensitive. My router
>>puts out 28 Mw and I can use my computer over 500 feet away.
>>My router cost 5 bucks after rebates. 
>>
>>My 2 gHz and 5 Ghz cordless phones cost nothing and have great range. 
>>
>>Seems to me that gAS fets are dirt cheap these days.....
>>
>>-D
>>
>> 
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>Received: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:36:21 AM PST
>>From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
>>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>>Subject: Re: [BC] Looks like we got snookered!
>>
>>Mike:
>>
>>The part Dana missed is that part of the loooong roll out in Canada is that
>>they 
>>can not get L band radios that are sensitive enough. There is a lot of
>>blockage 
>>in those bands.  Cellular combats thats by having many local cells. Eureka
>>could 
>>also have a cellular structure, but is was not built out that way in
> 
> Canada.
> 
>>R
>>
>>Mike McCarthy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dana....
>>>
>>>The broadcasters, particularly the big guns didn't want the new spectrum 
>>>which would in effect give the peanut whistles equal footing in audio 
>>>quality and improved coverage. They STILL DON'T EITHER. This is long 
>>>before the last ownership dereg. took place and CC, et al. were able to 
>>>go on a buying spree. That and the industry and technology were not 
>>>prepared for a new band.  Things change....over 10 years.
>>>
>>>Who could have imaged wireless broadband and the myriad of new things 
>>>which now requires spectrum for short distance communications needing as 
>>>much as they do now.
>>>
>>>Yes, we got Ibiquity and I agree it's a neutered system which has great 
>>>harm potential to the AM band. But after seeing the LONG roll outs in 
>>>Britain and Canada, we're rolling out Ibiquity a whole lot faster here.
>>>
>>>MM
>>>
>>>At 05:58 AM 1/3/2006 -0800, DANA PUOPOLO wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Check this out:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051230-083814-1294r
>>>>
>>>>If I recall, a slice of this spectrum was the VERY place where Eureka 
>>>>DAB was
>>>>to have gone. Hmmm...I'm wondering why the space wasn't available when
>>>>broadcasters wanted it (Seems the Pentagon needed it to test missles), 
>>>>but
>>>>when the cellular industry wants it: *POOF!!* there it is!
>>>>
>>>>Of did Ibiquity, the NAB and the "status quo" broadcasters get their 
>>>>way A la'
>>>>lobbying?
>>>>
>>>>I find it interesting that the ONLY people who GET DIGITAL RADIO SLOTS 
>>>>are the
>>>>ones that already own analog ones. Wasn't the original purpose of DAB to:
>>>>"Level the playing field"? I guess having a few consolidators owning 
>>>>most of
>>>>the good stations is level enough for the FCC and Congress.
>>>>
>>>>Well, it looks like the broadcasters (and their short term greed) just 
>>>>shot
>>>>themselves in the foot - AGAIN!
>>>>
>>>>See, one of the things the cellular industry is going to DO with this new
>>>>spectrum is deliver CONTENT (remember that word in earlier 
>>>>discussions?) to
>>>>the public.  Guess who's going to get short shrift as a result?
>>>>
>>>>The Broadcasters......
>>>>
>>>>I learned a moral a long time ago. It said: "Be careful of what you 
>>>>wish for,
>>>>because it might come true". The Consolidators and NAB wished for 
>>>>Ibiquity and
>>>>that's EXACTLY what they got - a crappy, neutered DAB system - but the
>>>>cellular industry gets the last laugh here, because THEY got (the) 45 
>>>>mHz of
>>>>spectrum that the consolidators and NAB gave up - to compete against 
>>>>them!
>>>>
>>>>Along with another 45 Mhz in the 2.1 gig band....
>>>>
>>>>-D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> http://www.radiolists.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/
> 