• 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

What happened and why is it still happening?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mainly for certain products, and for electronics stores, I'd agree. But even when they were plentiful, the availability of traditional radios in those stores had become smaller. Primarily because of the lack of innovation on the manufacturing side. Once it was determined that a phone could serve many of the same purposes, the battle was over. And for all the criticisms and complaints of "big corporate radio," there's no question that Apple, Google, and Amazon are each many times bigger than iHeart.
I don't blame the manufacturers. In the early to mid 2000's manufacturers were turning out radios (especially clock radios and kitchen radios) with MP3 player docks, especially IPod docks. I have a Sony alarm-clock / boombox / IPod player (with HD radio capability) within reach. I don't know how many of them sold, comparatively, but the fact that they aren't plentiful in homes speaks loads. By the time this Sony was produced, flip phones were gaining more capabilities, IPods were so portable people could carry them everywhere, and the smartphone was already in development or production.

A few years later, radio manufacturers turned out radios with AM/FM and bluetooth. But by then the die had been cast.

The phone took over because it was convenient. On that side of the issue, we are in complete agreement.

You can make all sorts of cool equipment and additions and modifications to a medium, but that doesn't mean the public won't ditch it for something else that -- as you mentioned -- does much of the same thing (in this case, music delivery and information access). And when people adopted the smartphone especially, they always took it with them wherever they went. No other device necessary.
 
You can make all sorts of cool equipment and additions and modifications to a medium, but that doesn't mean the public won't ditch it for something else that -- as you mentioned -- does much of the same thing (in this case, music delivery and information access). And when people adopted the smartphone especially, they always took it with them wherever they went. No other device necessary.
What you say is true, but to put it further into perspective: Average consumers, we're not talking about a tiny percentage of society that includes electronics enthusiasts, DX'er's, or 'radio nerds'; never purchased radios because they're radios, but as a way to access content. Fast forward to now, and smartphones are a one-stop-device for so much more than just listening to news or music. People's lives are literally on that smartphone.
 
Good comments by all on the subject. Regarding getting emergency info via a cell phone vs radio, yes the phone/cell system works well. But I wonder if in a major emergency it will be there.

Back in Oct.1989 in the SF Area during the Loma Prieta earthquake I was home, and we lost phone service for about 4 hours, in our area, landline back then. Power was off for a short time in our area.
In SF phone / power / fiber was "out", power for a longtime in places.

But who was there . . . RADIO . . . AM RADIO . . . everybody came out of their houses (very little damage in our area) and set in their cars in their driveway with their car radios tuned to KCBS 740 which was there . . . covering what was going on very well.
KGO 810 (whose transmitter site was about a mile from our home then, I was in their null) was OFF THE AIR, because they lost a tower . . . but KGO got back on later that night using one of three towers.

My point is RADIO WAS THERE . . . AM RADIO !

Maybe todays phone & cell service is more robust but I don't think the phone system as a whole is any better than 1989, when too many people try to make calls in an emergency the phone system usually "stops working".
By the way the SF TV major TV stations with generators at studios & Sutro Tower were back on the air almost with-in minutes, and they did a great job telling people what was happening too.

If RADIO & TV stations just streamed ( no more OTA ( Over The Air ) ) and if the phone service shuts down in a major emergency, you'd know nothing without old fashion RADIO or TV OTA broadcasting, right?
I think we are heading to all streaming via the phone circuits for RADIO & TV, but I don't think it will be there for the public if the phone / cell system takes a break because of overloaded circuits when you need it most.

With RADIO & TV OTA yes one, two or more stations might be off after a major event but then you have others located in a close by but different area that will be there.

You then get into if they'd have the staff to tell you what is going on, but that is another subject.

Al
 
Maybe todays phone & cell service is more robust but I don't think the phone system as a whole is any better than 1989, when too many people try to make calls in an emergency the phone system usually "stops working".

That was over 30 years ago. Since that time, the telecom companies have invested billions of dollars into improving phone service. A lot of the former broadcast TV spectrum has been sold to telecom companies to enlarge the capabilities of their service. Meanwhile AM radio is the same as it was 100 years ago. To say today's phone service isn't any better than it was over 30 years ago is totally wrong. It's a completely different service that is far more modern and has more redundancies than the landline phone service of the 1980s. The telecom companies continue to invest in improving phone service, and FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FCC all recognize the value and importance of cell service for communication during an emergency.
 
Good comments by all on the subject. Regarding getting emergency info via a cell phone vs radio, yes the phone/cell system works well. But I wonder if in a major emergency it will be there.
It's vastly more hardened now than when that quake hit. Cellullar has come a long way now, and in most metros is fairly redundant.

Because so few people listen to AM any more, most... like KCBS... have added FM and they are not investing in further technical advances in AM. So if there is another emergency in the Bay Area, it's likely that FM and Cellular will provide the information.

If homes are without power, few TV services will be of value as nearly nobody has portable digital HDTV's.
 
You then get into if they'd have the staff to tell you what is going on, but that is another subject.

Radio station staff would not be authorized to give emergency information. All of that was superseded by Homeland Security Act after 9/11. Radio stations are strictly transmission services of information coming from local or national emergency services through EAS.

Radio station airstaff aren't trained in what to say during an emergency. News people might know who to call, but that's about it.
 
why do we have Digital TV?

GREED

The FCC did yet another spectrum grab for digital services at the expense of TV,

Remember when UHF went to channel 83?

The ability to sub net channels and virtual channels made having multiple transmitting facilities obsolete

Example WLVI Boston sold their license and then leased space from another licensee on their allocation

Binney's WNDS or whatever the calls were on Channel 50 in NH sold their license for more money than the station would ever make or be worth.

The roll out of digital was always to use less of the spectrum so it could be reclaimed for other services
 
why do we have Digital TV?

GREED

The FCC did yet another spectrum grab for digital services at the expense of TV,

That may be "greed" to you, but there was huge demand for spectrum space for cell service. When the government does something for the public, it's disingenuous to call it greed.

The other part of this is that the qualitative improvement of digital TV is undeniable. The improvements in device technology from tube to flat screen is also undeniable. I don't hear anyone demanding a return to analog TVs.
 
The other part of this is that the qualitative improvement of digital TV is undeniable. The improvements in device technology from tube to flat screen is also undeniable. I don't hear anyone demanding a return to analog TVs.
Then I guess I'm not loud enough.

Only those people who live near the transmitters are getting the benefits.

I'm not moving closer to the transmitters. I live where I live. Why can't the transmitters all be on the "right" side of the city? And if they are, why can't the glitches just give me a fuzzy picture and not affect the sound? Why can't there just not be glitches?

Cable costs a lot even for just the broadcast channels. I should have gotten an outdoor antenna installed when someone would do it, whether it worked or not, and hoped wind and lightning wouldn't give me any problems.

And I've still got too many trees.
 
What you say is true, but to put it further into perspective: Average consumers, we're not talking about a tiny percentage of society that includes electronics enthusiasts, DX'er's, or 'radio nerds'; never purchased radios because they're radios, but as a way to access content. Fast forward to now, and smartphones are a one-stop-device for so much more than just listening to news or music. People's lives are literally on that smartphone.
Agreed, and I think that eventually phones will take over everything -- they'll replace money, debit cards, keys, document file cabinets, and desktop and laptop computers. The computing power inside most phones is tremendous compared even to desktops 20 years ago.

In the future all one will need for writing or other, similar activities that are mostly done on laptops now will be bluetooth compatible peripherals. If those don't all exist now, they will. Unless some other device replaces the smartphone, which is also possible.

I also realize that not everyone here on RD agrees with that assessment, and we all could go back and forth for ages on the subject, but that's the trend as I see it. And as you can tell, I'm a standalone radio guy, although my laptop has replaced my stereo. My phone is capable of doing that, but right now the laptop is personally more convenient for me. I don't really like charging my phone every other day. The laptop runs on wall power.
 
It's vastly more hardened now than when that quake hit. Cellullar has come a long way now, and in most metros is fairly redundant.
Perhaps in parts of big cities. In my locale, there are three cell sites within 2 miles. My phone 'sees' one of them. Which is why service goes down periodically, because it's the only one that serves my 2-3 mile square stretch of the suburbs. The massive cell site up on the hill isn't seen by my phone. Neither is another one 1.5 miles up the highway that is blocked by a hill.

None of them have backup generators. And Seattle is a tech paradise compared to -- maybe -- Great Falls or Burns, Oregon.

So while I understand that many cell sites have been hardened, and have generators, they're still relatively few and far between.
 
So while I understand that many cell sites have been hardened, and have generators, they're still relatively few and far between.

Keep in mind that it's an ongoing process. The main point of competition among carriers is service. That's really it. If one company has better service during a storm than another, they will point that out, and get more business. So the providers understand the issue, and they're going to keep investing in improving service.
 
Then I guess I'm not loud enough.
No, you are just voicing a very small minority opinion that is shrinking every day: TV viewers without cable, satellite or Internet delivery.
Only those people who live near the transmitters are getting the benefits.
If they are using a cheap antenna and OTA reception.
I'm not moving closer to the transmitters. I live where I live. Why can't the transmitters all be on the "right" side of the city? And if they are, why can't the glitches just give me a fuzzy picture and not affect the sound? Why can't there just not be glitches?
Why not get cable or one of the OTT services?

"An over-the-top (OTT) media service is a media service offered directly to viewers via the Internet. OTT bypasses cable, broadcast, and satellite television"
Cable costs a lot even for just the broadcast channels. I should have gotten an outdoor antenna installed when someone would do it, whether it worked or not, and hoped wind and lightning wouldn't give me any problems.
A good antenna mounted nearly flush to your roof or on a chimney is not particularly vulnerable to wind or lightening. Most come with some kind of lightening and static discharge filter, or you can get one.
And I've still got too many trees.
In metro areas, trees attenuate but do not eliminate signals.

You are making excuses for being a Luddite.
 
No, you are just voicing a very small minority opinion that is shrinking every day: TV viewers without cable, satellite or Internet delivery.
He said no one.
If they are using a cheap antenna and OTA reception.

Why not get cable or one of the OTT services?
Cable is costing me a lot each month just for the channels that should be free.
A good antenna mounted nearly flush to your roof or on a chimney is not particularly vulnerable to wind or lightening. Most come with some kind of lightening and static discharge filter, or you can get one.
Who's going to put these up?
 
Keep in mind that it's an ongoing process. The main point of competition among carriers is service. That's really it. If one company has better service during a storm than another, they will point that out, and get more business. So the providers understand the issue, and they're going to keep investing in improving service.
What boombox says is somewhat accurate. I have family in Puerto Rico, and at one point in the storm a few years ago 100% of cellular, 100% of electrical service and all but one of the 130 radio stations and all the TVs were down. Cable in the areas with service was down for months, electrical in some places was out as much as 4 to 5 months.

Cellular came back within hours in small areas of San Juan, but it took months to restore the whole service area.
 
Agreed, and I think that eventually phones will take over everything -- they'll replace money, debit cards, keys, document file cabinets, and desktop and laptop computers. The computing power inside most phones is tremendous compared even to desktops 20 years ago.

In the future all one will need for writing or other, similar activities that are mostly done on laptops now will be bluetooth compatible peripherals. If those don't all exist now, they will. Unless some other device replaces the smartphone, which is also possible.

I also realize that not everyone here on RD agrees with that assessment, and we all could go back and forth for ages on the subject, but that's the trend as I see it. And as you can tell, I'm a standalone radio guy, although my laptop has replaced my stereo. My phone is capable of doing that, but right now the laptop is personally more convenient for me. I don't really like charging my phone every other day. The laptop runs on wall power.
I ran into an ATM the other day that needed a phone to use since it was cardless - had to find another bank. I still use an old school flip phone mainly I'm in a rural area and barely get cellular. We do have internet but it's not speedy but get the job done.

Some say a chip in the brain will replace the phone...
 
Who's going to put these up?
Having someone put up a OTA antenna on your roof is a one-time expense. If you spread that expense across a twenty four month period verses a basic cable bill, I'd be willing to bet you'd pay off that one time installation expense in less than a year.

Let's do the simple calculation: The average basic cable TV bill in the U.S. is between $45 and $130 per month. So let's split the difference and call it $65 per month. For this exercise; you can go to Solidsignal.com and purchase an outdoor antenna, mounting hardware, and coax for $260: Winegard High Definition Platinum VHF/UHF/FM TV Antenna Bundle (HD-8200U)
Now you hire a handyman, or someone who installs consumer antennas for something like $300. So total out of pocket installation of an OTA system is around $600. Your antenna and installation is paid off in 9.23 months. The cash after that stays in your pocket.
 
Having someone put up a OTA antenna on your roof is a one-time expense. If you spread that expense across a twenty four month period verses a basic cable bill, I'd be willing to bet you'd pay off that one time installation expense in less than a year.

Let's do the simple calculation: The average basic cable TV bill in the U.S. is between $45 and $130 per month. So let's split the difference and call it $65 per month. For this exercise; you can go to Solidsignal.com and purchase an outdoor antenna, mounting hardware, and coax for $260: Winegard High Definition Platinum VHF/UHF/FM TV Antenna Bundle (HD-8200U)
Now you hire a handyman, or someone who installs consumer antennas for something like $300. So total out of pocket installation of an OTA system is around $600. Your antenna and installation is paid off in 9.23 months. The cash after that stays in your pocket.
I didn't ask how much. I get that if it actually works it will save me money in the long run. I'm saying no one who sells them will tell me who.
 
I didn't ask how much. I get that if it actually works it will save me money in the long run. I'm saying no one who sells them will tell me who.
Hint: Kelly just told you the "who" for the antenna kit. Then you call Handy or Angie for a qualified installer. Done. Enjoy more channels with a better picture.
 
I ran into an ATM the other day that needed a phone to use since it was cardless - had to find another bank. I still use an old school flip phone mainly I'm in a rural area and barely get cellular. We do have internet but it's not speedy but get the job done.

Some say a chip in the brain will replace the phone...
Don't even know how to use an ATM with a card. When I first got a debit card from this one bank they showed me how in the process of my setting my PIN number.

And when I got my new debit card the other day, I found out the account was dormant and getting that problem solved required me to listen to Motley Crue. Whatever happened to professional music in professional offices?

The sign said an $8 charge to get a check cashed without an account. Sometimes I think it would be cheaper to do that if i ever need money while near this bank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom