3 ms·
It's extremely efficient and doesn't harm anything else. What would you replace it with?
by bongodongobob 2y ago
It's extremely efficient and doesn't harm anything else. What would you replace it with?
- jdietrich 2y agoAny or all of the technologies that people actually use. Like it or not, the number of active shortwave listeners is tiny, even in poor and remote parts of the world. Voice of America and the BBC World Service are the strongest possible case for shortwave, but even they have been scaling back their shortwave operations because most of their listeners prefer local AM/FM transmissions or streaming. Whatever the benefits of shortwave might be, they're entirely hypothetical for the vast majority who have no interest in buying a relatively esoteric receiver, stringing up a longwire and chasing a carrier across the bands. I still occasionally operate on top band with a straight key, but even I have to accept that shortwave is now almost entirely irrelevant and rapidly headed towards extinction. https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentaries/why-reviving-shortwave-is-a-non-starter https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentar...
- IshKebab 2y agoIt's extremely inefficient, not efficient. It uses a lot of power. It harms everyone else by wasting power.
- bongodongobob 2y agoNah, it's efficient. Any number of people in that area are able to pick up the broadcast without a subscription or wires.