Re: ... Hope For A Digital AM Band?"

Michael <michael.setaazul@...>

Depressingly true - probably...

To the rear-guard referred to in the last two lines below,
the term "wireless" conveys a superior meaning :-)


----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Laws

Subject: Re: [ultralightdx] Re: WBT's Digital Test - "Is There Hope For A Digital AM Band?"

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM, RichardA <richarda@...> wrote:

Those were my thoughts as I typed my earlier comments. I'm not sure the youngsters of today know
what a radio receiver is. They already carry around a smartphone or device capable of receiving
thousands of radio stations. Why do they want to bother with tuning a digital radio receiver to hear
the same thing?

Also, Get Off My Lawn! :-)

You're right, of course, and I'm not sure they would even bother with
something like iHeartradio because the same device has 2000 of their
favorite songs available whenever they want in whatever order they

Most of them would be surprised to find out that their phones were
multi-band transceivers. My new Samsung ...

o transmits and receives WiFi on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz
o transmits and receives Bluetooth on 2.4 GHz (spread spectrum at that)
o transmits and receives on 6 different cellular bands ("world" phone)
o transmits and receives on 13.56 MHz(!) using the NFC protocol
o receives GPS *and* GLONASS signals

... and I would guess that less than 0.1% of the people that have them
know this. All they know is that it's "wireless". I didn't even know
how the near field stuff worked - I'll test it when I'm near my HF
transceiver. :-)

So with all that giving them anything they want (I can stream live
video or Netflix, after all), why would they even concern themselves
with AM or even FM radio?

I see dark days ahead for broadcasters, unfortunately, let alone for our hobby.

Oh - I actually just RTFA and see that the average age of an AM radio
listener is *already* 65. Bet it's only about 15-20 less for FM.

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.