We still need help, NPR tells its listeners

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 16, 2004 | Tommy Nguyen

[Cautor]

NPR = National Public Rip-off

[_Jim]

   You left out the "interesting" part of the deal.

I was awaiting a nibble at which time I would elaborated ...

   " PBS affiliate sold desirable VHF channel 2"

Yeah ... a 'low band' VHF TV channel that is afected by a) power line noise b) some computer operated toys/games and PC peripherals and c) recurring to just occasional 'skip' (depending on the sun spot cycle) from a thousand miles away.

If you've ever received 'broadcast TV' using an outside antenna you'll know what I mean.

I can get good, although sometimes ghosty images with just rabbit ears alone on the local Dallas UHF and VHF Hi-band channels; not so on the Low-VHF channels (2, 4 and 5 locally).

Frankly, in today's noisy RF environment - the low-band channels a lot of time look like crap.

[RandallFlagg]

NPR still needs help

Oh cry me an effing river.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Murdock bought NPR?

[_Jim]

An example of broadcast images taken locally using an outside log periodic antenna mounted in the clear just above the roof in a residential neighborhood :

VHF Hi-band CH 8 - Clean

VHF Lo-band CH 2 - Dirty 1) Impulse noise (due to noisy power line a couple blocks away) and 2) an irriating 'herrring bone' pattern as well (from a CPU or an LO in a cordless phone - I forget which now)

[PAR35]

Yeah ... a 'low band' VHF TV channel that is afected by ...Frankly, in today's noisy RF environment - the low-band channels a lot of time look like crap.

That reminds me - the PBS affiliate threw in a new digital channel into the deal when they sold channel 2 - you getting much interference on your digital channels?

Any way you cut it, Daystar established that a channel in the Dallas market was worth at least $37 million. The folks at KDTN established that they could get less than $20 million.

[vetvetdoug]

NPR=Never Proven Right

It would just be fine with me if NPR went tits up.

[RoarkMan]

I listen all the time. Mostly to the "hand-picked" music shows. Sometimes I like to listen to the left as a challenge - you know - know the enemy and all that. When the pledge drives roll around, I usually call in and explain that while I listen to the station, there's no way I'm giving them any money because of the bias. It's a great waste of their scarce resources.

Let them compete in the marketplace of ideas in the marketplace like everybody else.

[eddiespaghetti]

NPR is funded to the tune of $400 MILLION a year through govenrnment; i.e.; you and me

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! ARE THERE ANY CONGRESSMAN/SENATORS WHO ALSO FEEL THIS IS AN ABOMINATION? (Not in my district in Southern California, that's for sure!)

es

[_Jim]

you getting much interference on your digital channels?

I hadn't experienced any with 'the good gear' (some of the cheaper receivers in the 800 MHz band with 10.8 or 10.7 MHz IFs pick up some of the TV aural and visual carriers). I had a source of weak video carrier in the 440 MHz UHF ham band yesterday for awhile, but that's unrelated to any commercial broadcasts I think (there was coincidently a couple of carriers 4.5 MHz apart on 421.25 and 425.725 MHz about the same time)

About a year I documented the Dallas, TX Television RF Spectrum here . At the time there were eight new Digital UHF stations including a new digital CH 9 -

- several CH's have disappeared since then, such as CHs 46 and 60.

[_Jim]

The folks at KDTN established that they could get less than $20 million.

Like I said - Low-band VHF sucks. I think they may have found out the hard way. What I'm realating here on this subject aren't just superflous observations by an untrained member of the non-technical public - it is the product of accumulated observations and 'tests' by an interested 'observer' ... a couple of years ago I even went through the difficulty of cutting range patterns and measuring gain on a couple of multi-element Log Periodic TV antennas ...

[Herodotus]

If I understand it, that's why everything's going to digital transmissions, which will mean a much narrower signal.

[Drango]

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! ARE THERE ANY CONGRESSMAN/SENATORS WHO ALSO FEEL THIS IS AN ABOMINATION?

Not many...NPR/PBS survive 'cause republicans and democrates support 'em. For a list, click on my homepage (name) and scroll down.

[_Jim]

If I understand it, that's why everything's going to digital transmissions, which will mean a much narrower signal.

Well, going digital allows some 'games' be played that aren't available with the analog signal - but this doesn't bear much relation to a 'narrower' signal. In fact, the opposite is actually the case, without some *special* effort to shoehorn things (the digital signal) into a 6 MHz TV channel 'slot' the spectrum could easily be 2 or 3 times as wide.

The low-band TV channels are pain in the rear; a TV antenna's gain 'flatness' (and VSWR or 'match' or Z) varies more across the low-band channels (Chs 2-6) than it does in the HI-VHF and UHF channels; a higher ERP (transmitter power times antenna gain) is easier to achieve at VHF-Hi and UHF than it is at 54 MHz - this translates, after several other factors are considered (such as local noise, receiver antenna performance) an effectivly stronger and higher S/N (signal to noise) ratio signal on VHF-Hi (Chs 8-13) and UHF broadcast channels.

Going to digital allows such things as very effective error correction codes and routines (EDAC - error detection and correction) to be used, such as some of powerful forward error correction codes in the convolutional code category - if you've ever studied some of the EDAC done to improve disk drive technology and readability - this is along the same lines ...

[VOA]

But at least one public radio listener, KCRW's general manager Ruth Seymour,
reacted differently. "I just about flipped," says Ms. Seymour, who remembers standing
on a busy street corner in Manhattan when she read the Times story. "I was screaming
into the telephone: 'You have to get me through to the editor!' "

I live in West Los Angeles.
Ruth Seymour used to get bad press on a routine basis in one of the Los Angeles
alternative weeklies.

The general impression from the news media is that Ms. Seymour and most of the
staff at KCRW are doing quite well, thank you.
And don't deserve a red cent from the US guvmint.

[Destro]

Cut off NPR and we can halfway pay for the moon mission.

[WhiteGuy]

I'll send NPR the same amount that I'm willing to send PETA, UNICF and the RNC...........

NUTHIN

[PAR35]

Like I said - Low-band VHF sucks. I think they may have found out the hard way.

Since you are the expert, I'll yield to you. Just so I'm clear, are you saying Digital Channel 43, which was included in the $20 million sale from KDTN to Daystar, is a low band VHF frequency which has poor quality because of its location on the spectrum?

[Tempest]

NPR Sucks the sooner they fade away the better.