Link to Seattle-Tacoma board:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,92606.msg708165.html#msg708165
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
More HD AM comments
- Thread starter SUPERCASTER
- Start date
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,92606.msg708165.html#msg708165
Yup, AM IBOC is terrible, I just drove back and forth to Burlington, VT tonight about a 4 hour trip from here, and was trying to listen to Coast to Coast on WABC 770 and got buzzed out several times from WBBM 780 believe it or not, but because it is so ahem... so prominent on AM at night I just hit scan and usually it was found on another station within about 2 seconds, at least it is an interesting show sometimes. I also listened to CHWO 740 for a lot of the trip, great station, played swing, jump, rock a billy and 50's and 60's rock n roll until midnight, quite a good mix.
Skywave is AM's last saving grace, I cannot for the life of me figure out why AM broadcasters would not care about it and trample other stations. You don't have to be a DXer to listen easily half way accross the country at night.
Skywave is AM's last saving grace, I cannot for the life of me figure out why AM broadcasters would not care about it and trample other stations. You don't have to be a DXer to listen easily half way accross the country at night.
KB1OKL said:
The highlighted sentence alone shows you don't know a thing about commercial broadcasting. Stations don't seel their skywave signal. Stations in the US survive by selling air time. While large market stations depend on agency sales those advertisers still want to regionalize their advertisements. The new method of network radio sales distribution is to sell spots on a market by market basis. For instance, if you sell GM, the spot run in LA would be different than the spot run in San Francisco and that spot is different than the spot run in Portland and on and on. The days of a single spot serving the entire country are coming to an end. With that in mind, what good is it for a sponsor of a station in Chicago to have their spot heard in Pittsburgh. Radio is a business, not a hobby and unless you can earn a profit from it, you will go out of business. DXing and AM radio are going the way of silent pictures. Sure some older folks and DXers might have fond memories but they aren't relevent in todays marketplace.
R.F. Burns said:
I understand what you're saying but I'm speaking from a consumer's perspective. It just seems like radio is doing everything wrong, Canada for example is moving many of their AM stations to FM (not digital) which to my mind is crazy because you lose the range. I thought it was great driving all that way and being able to listen to the same station, I know they have no immediate plans to move CHWO though. I was not DXing last night I was being entertained both by CHWO and Coast to Coast. Consumers couldn't care less about commercials in fact hate them so I would think radio would do things to attract more listeners not repel them. I know the bloc of 350 ads in a row makes me turn the station off every time and I usually don't go back to it (or turn it way down so I don't have to listen to them) . Radio is doing everything to cut the range and/or jam adjacents with IBOC and Canada is moving many of their AM's to FM which also cuts the range, but at the same time stations are now accessible on the internet worldwide, which approach is ultimately going to be successful? It would be a different story if local stations had local content but 99.9% of them don't, so why local commercials? I think somethings is backwards here. I don't think self serving is the answer.
KB1OKL said:
Actually, YOU'RE NOT.
You're speaking from a DXers standpoint. I understand you and hear you, but you are NOT "Speaking from a consumer's perspective". You are speakling from a Sub Sub Sub Sub Subset of AM radio listeners - The DXer. You are NOT the typical consumer perspective. Not even tangientially related. You must understand that if you are ever to see what is going on. (Whether you agree with it or not).
You are out of the listening area. You are a DXER. I will credit you for your steadfast claiming that listening to programming instead of pulling a station out of the grass is not DXing, but CHWO barely reaches Watertown, NY at night with out DX.
YOU'RE JUST WRONG HERE. You are a DXER.
Not trying to be mean, but this CLEARLY shows why you do not understand the economics of radio. I can understand that. You are a licensed radio AMATEUR. (As am I)
You just do not understand that radio owners do not have a day job like you and I, that funds their "Hobby". They gotta pay for it. No one at a commercial station should be selling Kenmores at Sears so you can get no commercials. That will NOT get good programming.
Well since virtually every radio station in the country has stopsets that have multiple commercials, I would suspect you would have run out of stations a long time ago if your "usually don't go back to it" statement was true.
I'm sure you think you have this all worked out. I'll tell you the same thing I tell all the teenagers Move out before your parents values corrupt you.
In the meantime...
Sit back, have a colortini and watch the pictures and sounds fly through the air.
Or maybe you could try and tune in New Zealand. It's all equally relevant. None of this has much to do with commercial radio.
Not mean... Honest.
Clouseau.
clouseau said:KB1OKL said:
Actually, YOU'RE NOT.
You're speaking from a DXers standpoint. I understand you and hear you, but you are NOT "Speaking from a consumer's perspective". You are speakling from a Sub Sub Sub Sub Subset of AM radio listeners - The DXer. You are NOT the typical consumer perspective. Not even tangientially related. You must understand that if you are ever to see what is going on. (Whether you agree with it or not).
You are out of the listening area. You are a DXER. I will credit you for your steadfast claiming that listening to programming instead of pulling a station out of the grass is not DXing, but CHWO barely reaches Watertown, NY at night with out DX.
YOU'RE JUST WRONG HERE. You are a DXER.
Not trying to be mean, but this CLEARLY shows why you do not understand the economics of radio. I can understand that. You are a licensed radio AMATEUR. (As am I)
You just do not understand that radio owners do not have a day job like you and I, that funds their "Hobby". They gotta pay for it. No one at a commercial station should be selling Kenmores at Sears so you can get no commercials. That will NOT get good programming.
Well since virtually every radio station in the country has stopsets that have multiple commercials, I would suspect you would have run out of stations a long time ago if your "usually don't go back to it" statement was true.
I'm sure you think you have this all worked out. I'll tell you the same thing I tell all the teenagers Move out before your parents values corrupt you.
In the meantime...
Sit back, have a colortini and watch the pictures and sounds fly through the air.
Or maybe you could try and tune in New Zealand. It's all equally relevant. None of this has much to do with commercial radio.
Not mean... Honest.
Clouseau.
Just curious as to a viewpoint frequently expressed here, and looking for clarification. There is a "slippery slope" issue that has never been addressed. The IBOC-AM supporters insist that "skywave" and "out-of-market listening" are technological antiques and that, implicitly, HD-AM operators should be able to generate higher levels of adjacent-channel interference because of this new "truism."
Okay. So, assuming, arguendo, that the pro-IBOC/anti-"out-of-market-listening" proponents are correct, precisely WHAT level of adjacent-channel interference should be established as "acceptable" or "tolerable?"
Are you guys talking about: nobody in Buffalo should bother trying to hear KDKA any more because of WBZ? Or are you talking about some listener in Salem, Massachusetts, shouldn't bother trying to tune in WEEI because they're 12 feet outside the station's measured NIF?
There's a massively illogical and impossible-to-regulate aspect of the "you're not entitled to coverage outside your NIF" argument. It goes like this.
Has anyone bothered to take into account the seasonal changes in AM coverage, particularly in parts of the country which live with low ground conductivity? A given coverage contour for these AM stations can expand by 50% in winter months and shrink by a like amount in the summer. So, what? Does this mean we're prepared to let IBOC-AM stations interfere more in the summer than we do in the winter? How would interference be regulated? Are stations going to head out and measure the actual extent of their NIF every 30 days and will the Commission make IBOC stations adjust the digital injection level every few weeks?
How about the fact that when you apply for a nighttime authorization on AM, the FCC requires plotting of the 5 mv/m and 2.5 mv/m contours as a technical exhibit. If indeed it's true that "you're only entitled to your NIF" what's the point of this requirement? Most new night patterns specify NIF's which exceed 5 mv/m by wide margins. Why would the FCC require a plotted contour that's of utterly no value, now that we're in the brave new world of IBOC and its 78 operating nighttime stations?
Just wondering. Don't you think it's a little silly to argue that Chuck gets to listen to an AM signal free of IBOC interference while his neighbors across the street, who happen to be 15 feet outside this month's NIF, should expect NO service.
Okay. So, assuming, arguendo, that the pro-IBOC/anti-"out-of-market-listening" proponents are correct, precisely WHAT level of adjacent-channel interference should be established as "acceptable" or "tolerable?"
Are you guys talking about: nobody in Buffalo should bother trying to hear KDKA any more because of WBZ? Or are you talking about some listener in Salem, Massachusetts, shouldn't bother trying to tune in WEEI because they're 12 feet outside the station's measured NIF?
There's a massively illogical and impossible-to-regulate aspect of the "you're not entitled to coverage outside your NIF" argument. It goes like this.
Has anyone bothered to take into account the seasonal changes in AM coverage, particularly in parts of the country which live with low ground conductivity? A given coverage contour for these AM stations can expand by 50% in winter months and shrink by a like amount in the summer. So, what? Does this mean we're prepared to let IBOC-AM stations interfere more in the summer than we do in the winter? How would interference be regulated? Are stations going to head out and measure the actual extent of their NIF every 30 days and will the Commission make IBOC stations adjust the digital injection level every few weeks?
How about the fact that when you apply for a nighttime authorization on AM, the FCC requires plotting of the 5 mv/m and 2.5 mv/m contours as a technical exhibit. If indeed it's true that "you're only entitled to your NIF" what's the point of this requirement? Most new night patterns specify NIF's which exceed 5 mv/m by wide margins. Why would the FCC require a plotted contour that's of utterly no value, now that we're in the brave new world of IBOC and its 78 operating nighttime stations?
Just wondering. Don't you think it's a little silly to argue that Chuck gets to listen to an AM signal free of IBOC interference while his neighbors across the street, who happen to be 15 feet outside this month's NIF, should expect NO service.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
Okay. So, assuming, arguendo, that the pro-IBOC/anti-"out-of-market-listening" proponents are correct, precisely WHAT level of adjacent-channel interference should be established as "acceptable" or "tolerable?"
Since we are doing Latin Legalese 101, hasn't this been settled "defacto" by all the night authorizations over the last 13 years?
Here's a list of some AM stations that were routine catches for me during the 1970's-early 1990's:
WKBW
WPTR
WTOP
WNJR
WAVZ-(DAY)
WHAM
WGAR-WOGL 1210
WHAS
WPGR(day)
WGY
WOWO(The reason here is well known).
WMAQ(splatter from WNBC-WFAN but there)
CHWO and it's predecessor
Plus a few more Canadians in the 800's-900's
ALL of these were available with standard radios such as AA5's and even decent, peaked transistor sets.
Gradually during the 1990's these got mostly submerged into a porridge of fading signals from stations not powerful enough to punch through but still able to wreck once-reliable signals.
Now even with the best sets I have most are simply too noisy or fading to bother with.
Today I'am able to get WNJR-day and CHWO-night.
I don't have an answer for this regarding iboc, but it seems a precedent has already been established; "local-primary" protected, everything else is wild-west.
Lino
Since we are doing Latin Legalese 101, hasn't this been settled "defacto" by all the night authorizations over the last 13 years?
Here's a list of some AM stations that were routine catches for me during the 1970's-early 1990's:
WKBW
WPTR
WTOP
WNJR
WAVZ-(DAY)
WHAM
WGAR-WOGL 1210
WHAS
WPGR(day)
WGY
WOWO(The reason here is well known).
WMAQ(splatter from WNBC-WFAN but there)
CHWO and it's predecessor
Plus a few more Canadians in the 800's-900's
ALL of these were available with standard radios such as AA5's and even decent, peaked transistor sets.
Gradually during the 1990's these got mostly submerged into a porridge of fading signals from stations not powerful enough to punch through but still able to wreck once-reliable signals.
Now even with the best sets I have most are simply too noisy or fading to bother with.
Today I'am able to get WNJR-day and CHWO-night.
I don't have an answer for this regarding iboc, but it seems a precedent has already been established; "local-primary" protected, everything else is wild-west.
Lino
So, noting the typical sarcasm, the answer is: Chuck lives in the NIF, so he gets a guarantee of interference-free reception. Bill, 30 feet away on the other side of the street but OUTSIDE this month's NIF, gets bupkis.
And presumably we're supposed to live with an unenforceable interference standard for first-adjacents on AM that varies from one season to the next and which conflicts violently with nighttime protection standards and a decades-long standing FCC definition of "city-grade coverage."
And again this implausible argument is profferred: "the interference situation on AM is so bad that we should add more interference to cure it."
Thank you, Lino, we appreciate your answer.
And presumably we're supposed to live with an unenforceable interference standard for first-adjacents on AM that varies from one season to the next and which conflicts violently with nighttime protection standards and a decades-long standing FCC definition of "city-grade coverage."
And again this implausible argument is profferred: "the interference situation on AM is so bad that we should add more interference to cure it."
Thank you, Lino, we appreciate your answer.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
"So, noting the typical sarcasm, the answer is: Chuck lives in the NIF, so he gets a guarantee of interference-free reception. Bill, 30 feet away on the other side of the street but OUTSIDE this month's NIF, gets bupkis."
Isn't that how those contour maps work already. Perhaps moreso with FM where only a few feet has a practical effect on whose turf you are on.
"And presumably we're supposed to live with an unenforceable interference standard for first-adjacents on AM that varies from one season to the next and which conflicts violently with nighttime protection standards and a decades-long standing FCC definition of "city-grade coverage." "
Well according to the republican headed adminsitration...yes. They gave final approval last spring.
'And again this implausible argument is profferred: "the interference situation on AM is so bad that we should add more interference to cure it."
To which I add, the demos situation is so bad for AM that anything that raises the prospect for improved audio and thus, possible younger listeners is worth some sacrifices.
Wothout something radical (sorry about that word) these arguments will be moot in ten years.
Thank you, Lino, we appreciate your answer.
Anytime.
Lino
Isn't that how those contour maps work already. Perhaps moreso with FM where only a few feet has a practical effect on whose turf you are on.
"And presumably we're supposed to live with an unenforceable interference standard for first-adjacents on AM that varies from one season to the next and which conflicts violently with nighttime protection standards and a decades-long standing FCC definition of "city-grade coverage." "
Well according to the republican headed adminsitration...yes. They gave final approval last spring.
'And again this implausible argument is profferred: "the interference situation on AM is so bad that we should add more interference to cure it."
To which I add, the demos situation is so bad for AM that anything that raises the prospect for improved audio and thus, possible younger listeners is worth some sacrifices.
Wothout something radical (sorry about that word) these arguments will be moot in ten years.
Thank you, Lino, we appreciate your answer.
Anytime.
Lino
No.
Of course that isn't "how these contour maps work," as anybody knows. Contour maps are contour maps - they are supposed to approximate the coverage for a specified signal strength, not purporting to be an autocratic - and constantly changing - arbiter of who gets acceptable coverage versus who doesn't.
(I also think you missed it: the discussion is AM, not FM, and HD.)
Your contention that increasing overall interference on a noise-plagued band to favor some elitist digital scheme implemented at night by 1.7% of existing stations, for an audience that's so small as to be unmeasurable, in a marketplace where consumers could hardly care less - has no more validly than your repeated attempts to politicize a technical discussion, trying to blame everything on Republicans.
Well, all this is moot in any event. Look at the marketplace for HD-AM if you want to know who's got the grasp on reality in this debate. HD-AM makes the Edsel look like a marketing masterpiece.
Of course that isn't "how these contour maps work," as anybody knows. Contour maps are contour maps - they are supposed to approximate the coverage for a specified signal strength, not purporting to be an autocratic - and constantly changing - arbiter of who gets acceptable coverage versus who doesn't.
(I also think you missed it: the discussion is AM, not FM, and HD.)
Your contention that increasing overall interference on a noise-plagued band to favor some elitist digital scheme implemented at night by 1.7% of existing stations, for an audience that's so small as to be unmeasurable, in a marketplace where consumers could hardly care less - has no more validly than your repeated attempts to politicize a technical discussion, trying to blame everything on Republicans.
Well, all this is moot in any event. Look at the marketplace for HD-AM if you want to know who's got the grasp on reality in this debate. HD-AM makes the Edsel look like a marketing masterpiece.
You know...
I have HD in one of my vehicles, and must say that is is not close to no value. HD on AM -- and especially HD on skywave -- is just too flaky to be useful. And, that's a shame, because AM can use every little bit of help that it can get.
But, here's what I don't get on the night IBOC issue. Many of these stations may have their IBOC signals impinge on AM channels that are clears in other countries (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, etc.). Those clears were established long ago by Treaty, which has the power of statutory law. When an engineering guy I know asked how FCC Rules can trump Treaties, I was stymied to give a good answer. I am still scratching my head on this one.
A lawyer might argue that FCC Rules are, and always will be, subservient to Treaty. And, that's an interesting argument.
Hmmm...
DE
I have HD in one of my vehicles, and must say that is is not close to no value. HD on AM -- and especially HD on skywave -- is just too flaky to be useful. And, that's a shame, because AM can use every little bit of help that it can get.
But, here's what I don't get on the night IBOC issue. Many of these stations may have their IBOC signals impinge on AM channels that are clears in other countries (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, etc.). Those clears were established long ago by Treaty, which has the power of statutory law. When an engineering guy I know asked how FCC Rules can trump Treaties, I was stymied to give a good answer. I am still scratching my head on this one.
A lawyer might argue that FCC Rules are, and always will be, subservient to Treaty. And, that's an interesting argument.
Hmmm...
DE
Well, I had heard from our Canadian friends that they were ready to pick a couple of cases of IBOC interference and go to the State Department about it. But there are so few US AM stations using the damn thing they haven't been able to gather enough data yet. I heard that the 1040 up in PQ was going to squawk but I can't find anybody up there who speaka-da-English and my high school French is "mairde."
I also have it on good authority that the Mexicans aren't thrilled either. But frankly, I think that the agenda is that dopey HD-AM is such a dead-end issue that the North American foreign adjacents are waiting to see if it just goes away on its own. They may feel that unless there is an egregious case - as CFRB threatened to be, if WMVP and KDKA ever both turned on HD at night - it's not worth getting into an international scrap over.
I also have it on good authority that the Mexicans aren't thrilled either. But frankly, I think that the agenda is that dopey HD-AM is such a dead-end issue that the North American foreign adjacents are waiting to see if it just goes away on its own. They may feel that unless there is an egregious case - as CFRB threatened to be, if WMVP and KDKA ever both turned on HD at night - it's not worth getting into an international scrap over.
"Those who don't study history, are doomed to repeat it" - this is true not only for politicians, but for engineers.
You may recall 70 years ago it was CFRB getting smoked at night by the 500KW adjacent WLW that caused the FCC to revoke WLW's half-million watts, and nothing else. Even when WLW went to a directional antenna, it was just too much for the first adjacent CFRB. Now CFRB has moved on the dial, but is still next to USA Clears.
CFRB could shutdown the two (or four) adjacents' IBOC that are infringing on its signal with IBOC buzz at night (and/or day).
You may recall 70 years ago it was CFRB getting smoked at night by the 500KW adjacent WLW that caused the FCC to revoke WLW's half-million watts, and nothing else. Even when WLW went to a directional antenna, it was just too much for the first adjacent CFRB. Now CFRB has moved on the dial, but is still next to USA Clears.
CFRB could shutdown the two (or four) adjacents' IBOC that are infringing on its signal with IBOC buzz at night (and/or day).
JohnnyElectron said:
And you know this how? You can't just make statements and not back them up. Which stations are interfering. If your going to make a statement like this you have to back up your words with proof. If CFRB had this problem why hasn't it bee reported yet,
L
LinoNYC
Guest
Of course that isn't "how these contour maps work," as anybody knows. Contour maps are contour maps - they are supposed to approximate the coverage for a specified signal strength, not purporting to be an autocratic - and constantly changing - arbiter of who gets acceptable coverage versus who doesn't.
Polite reminder: It was you who tried to torture logic with the argument that
"Chuck lives in the NIF, so he gets a guarantee of interference-free reception. Bill, 30 feet away on the other side of the street but OUTSIDE this month's NIF, gets bupkis. I see you have come back to reality.
Your contention that increasing overall interference on a noise-plagued band to favor some elitist digital scheme implemented at night by 1.7% of existing stations, for an audience that's so small as to be unmeasurable
You might want to refrain from statements such as this, but answering your question, If it gives an AM station a degree of sonic parity with FM, yes.
Well, all this is moot in any event. Look at the marketplace for HD-AM if you want to know who's got the grasp on reality in this debate. HD-AM makes the Edsel look like a marketing masterpiece.
I thought you claimed some historical perspective in broadcasting. We have been over this one already.
Lino
Polite reminder: It was you who tried to torture logic with the argument that
"Chuck lives in the NIF, so he gets a guarantee of interference-free reception. Bill, 30 feet away on the other side of the street but OUTSIDE this month's NIF, gets bupkis. I see you have come back to reality.
Your contention that increasing overall interference on a noise-plagued band to favor some elitist digital scheme implemented at night by 1.7% of existing stations, for an audience that's so small as to be unmeasurable
You might want to refrain from statements such as this, but answering your question, If it gives an AM station a degree of sonic parity with FM, yes.
Well, all this is moot in any event. Look at the marketplace for HD-AM if you want to know who's got the grasp on reality in this debate. HD-AM makes the Edsel look like a marketing masterpiece.
I thought you claimed some historical perspective in broadcasting. We have been over this one already.
Lino
Hey friends, back in Reply #6 I posed a question as to the specific meaning of "AM stations are only entitled to local coverage" in an era of "skywave listening is dead/antique/counterproductive" etc., etc. as is endlessly argued by IBOC-AM proponents.
I asked: so, what PRECISELY does this mean?
a. Can someone point to a new Commission rule which was enacted which specifically states that the only meaningful predictor of AM coverage at night is now to be that station's NIF? If so, what is meant by "NIF?" The station's licensed NIF or the value for any station pusuant to the 25% "exclusion RSS" interpretation? Is it the NIF as predicted by the station's consulting engineer or is it the actual measured NIF? If the latter, how is enforcement to be accomplished with seasonal variations in station measured field strength?
b. If there is no such rule as in (a), can someone point to case law or interpretations of the Rules which give guidance with respect to the "you're only entitled to your NIF" argument??
c. If neither (a) nor (b) actually exist on this earth, maybe someone would like to join me in opining that "you're only entitled to your NIF" is just some convenient talking point invented out of thin air by pro-IBOCers. Or, to put it another way: the FCC has NEVER ruled that ALL COVERAGE outside the NIF is to be utterly worthless.
Just wondering if anyone has any specific info in this regard - as opposed to unwarranted supposition, snide side comments, and rhetoric. You know, like information which would actually contribute to the discussion.
I'd really like to know, if someone can help.
I asked: so, what PRECISELY does this mean?
a. Can someone point to a new Commission rule which was enacted which specifically states that the only meaningful predictor of AM coverage at night is now to be that station's NIF? If so, what is meant by "NIF?" The station's licensed NIF or the value for any station pusuant to the 25% "exclusion RSS" interpretation? Is it the NIF as predicted by the station's consulting engineer or is it the actual measured NIF? If the latter, how is enforcement to be accomplished with seasonal variations in station measured field strength?
b. If there is no such rule as in (a), can someone point to case law or interpretations of the Rules which give guidance with respect to the "you're only entitled to your NIF" argument??
c. If neither (a) nor (b) actually exist on this earth, maybe someone would like to join me in opining that "you're only entitled to your NIF" is just some convenient talking point invented out of thin air by pro-IBOCers. Or, to put it another way: the FCC has NEVER ruled that ALL COVERAGE outside the NIF is to be utterly worthless.
Just wondering if anyone has any specific info in this regard - as opposed to unwarranted supposition, snide side comments, and rhetoric. You know, like information which would actually contribute to the discussion.
I'd really like to know, if someone can help.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
The answer is simple; after five and a half years of on-air "testing" the FCC approved the system.
Lino
Lino
clouseau said:KB1OKL said:
Actually, YOU'RE NOT.
You're speaking from a DXers standpoint. I understand you and hear you, but you are NOT "Speaking from a consumer's perspective". You are speakling from a Sub Sub Sub Sub Subset of AM radio listeners - The DXer. You are NOT the typical consumer perspective. Not even tangientially related. You must understand that if you are ever to see what is going on. (Whether you agree with it or not).
You are out of the listening area. You are a DXER. I will credit you for your steadfast claiming that listening to programming instead of pulling a station out of the grass is not DXing, but CHWO barely reaches Watertown, NY at night with out DX.
YOU'RE JUST WRONG HERE. You are a DXER.
Not trying to be mean, but this CLEARLY shows why you do not understand the economics of radio. I can understand that. You are a licensed radio AMATEUR. (As am I)
You just do not understand that radio owners do not have a day job like you and I, that funds their "Hobby". They gotta pay for it. No one at a commercial station should be selling Kenmores at Sears so you can get no commercials. That will NOT get good programming.
Well since virtually every radio station in the country has stopsets that have multiple commercials, I would suspect you would have run out of stations a long time ago if your "usually don't go back to it" statement was true.
I'm sure you think you have this all worked out. I'll tell you the same thing I tell all the teenagers Move out before your parents values corrupt you.
In the meantime...
Sit back, have a colortini and watch the pictures and sounds fly through the air.
Or maybe you could try and tune in New Zealand. It's all equally relevant. None of this has much to do with commercial radio.
Not mean... Honest.
Clouseau.
I guess I'm a full time DX'er then
well because only one station locally comes up my way, all the rest are fringes or distantly challenged.- Status