From: MOORE@tmu1.mcrest.edu (Don Moore) Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Subject: Satelite vs SW (article) Considering all the discussion recently on the future of shortwave & use of satelites, this seems an appropriate time to post the following article. This article appeared in the January, 1994 issue of the JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN SHORTWAVE ASSOCIATION. For more information on NASWA & a sample bulletin, send two dollars (three dollars outside the US, Canada, & Mexico) to NASWA, 45 Wildflower Road; Levittown, PA, 19057, USA. For lots of detailed information and perspectives on shortwave broadcasting, NASWA's coverage is unmatched by anyone. Don Moore MOORE@TMU1.MCREST.EDU ****************************************************************** SOME THOUGHTS ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF SATELITES FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING By Don Moore (PREFACE: This article was inspired by several recent features touching on satelites in international broadcasting on Radio Netherlands' MEDIA NETWORK program. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject and this article has not been specifically researched. It is based simply on impressions and ideas I have gotten from countless articles and radio programs over the past several years. I have never owned or used a satelite system. Those who truly know better than I do are invited to point out mistakes and misconceptions where they exist. My hope is that this article will help raise some questions that need to be answered from the perspective of the listener on the problems and potentials of international satelite broadcasting. This article is written from an American point of view, with an eye towards the broadcasting industry in the United States.) When I first got into the shortwave listening hobby in the early 1970s, I remember there was a lot of talk and speculation about satelite communications. I recall some individuals even predicting that shortwave would be dead by the end of the century, and perhaps several years sooner. As we move into the mid-1990s, we see that that is not going to be true, and that shortwave will remain a major player in international communications for at least another decade, probably two or more, unless there are dramatic technological developments. Yet, increasing use of satelites for international broadcasting is the wave of the future. And it should be - satelite technology is clearly superior in the ability to deliver a quality signal. The potential drawbacks to international broadcasting via satelite are not technical, but rather political, commercial, and sociological. From that perspective, I've been wondering how international satelite broadcasting might be accomplished and what it may mean to us, the listeners. SATELITES AS A TOOL FOR LOCAL REBROADCAST One use of satelites is that being pursued by Trans World Radio - send the signal via satelite to local radio stations for rebroadcast. The key here is whether or not there are sufficient local media outlets to relay your broadcast. A few public radio stations in the US relay some programs from a few international broadcasters such as the BBC and Deutsche Welle. But considering the vast number of international broadcasters and program hours produced by them and the small number of public broadcasting stations in any given area, this is never going to be a viable replacement for shortwave. The next option would be to have your broadcasts relayed as an FM feed via cable operators. Currently, C-Span relays the BBC World Service 24 hours a day on one channel and selected English language broadcasts from a variety of broadcasters on another channel throughout the day. Some cable operators pick this up for relay to their subscribers. But, the FM dial is only so big, and much of that space is given to carrying local and regional commercial radio stations. In reality, there is very limited room for international broadcasting on cable FM feeds. With television, channel availiblity again becomes the issue. Will cable services want to carry international broadcasters' TV offerings in the limited channel space that they have? In the near future in the US we will have 500 channel cable television. What are they going to put on the added channels? More variety? Relay English language TV networks from other countries, Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Nigeria, India ... or, for more variety, from non-English speaking places such as Brazil, Norway, Thailand ... No, we are going to get more of the same reruns and movies. The same movie (which we can also rent for a couple bucks at the corner video store) will be shown on ten channels starting at fifteen minute intervals for increased flexibility in viewing. How soon will it be until we have an all Star Trek channel, an all Waltons channel, or an all MASH channel, repeating the same series over and over? If there is money to be made, the commercial media conglomerates will do it, and even with 5000 channels, there isn't going to be much room for non-profit international broadcasting via cable. DIRECT SATELITE BROADCASTING The other option for international broadcasting is direct broadcasting via satelites; each listener/viewer has their own receiver and antenna. There has been talk in North America of creating a "DBS" band for direct satelite radio broadcasting. While satelite and digital technology do allow a greater number of broadcasters to utilize a specific bandwidth, one again has to ask if there will be room at the inn for international broadcasting. Or, will the band be filled with countless similar but competing rock and country music stations? The more likely scenario for direct satelite broadcasting is similar to the state of the satelite TV industry today: only interested dedicated individuals and those without other options will buy the necessary equipment to tune in. It won't be a mass medium. In fact, that description is probably not much different from shortwave listening in North America today. In this scenario, international broadcasting via satelite cannot effectively compete with terrestrial-based cable for large numbers of viewers/listeners. It will remain an also-ran, as shortwave is today relative to AM and FM. Of course, as many shortwave broadcasters will tell you, the key is not so much how many you reach as who you reach, especially in the small North American shortwave audience. Studies have consistently shown that the North American shortwave audience is mainly highly- educated "opinion leaders". The question is, is there appropriate equipment for these people to buy, and will they opt to buy it? Satelite dishes will clearly need to come down in size, and as satelites get more powerful they are indeed doing that. "Opinion leaders" tend to live in urban areas and may not have room for large dishes. Those who live in apartments may need very small dishes, indeed. But how do you serve the increasing number of listeners who have shortwave receivers in their cars? A special antenna would be needed for that environment. Flexibility is an important point of comparison between shortwave and satelite. Pointing a satelite dish at a specific satelite and then repositioning it for another is a lot less flexible than using a shortwave randomwire that doesnt' need to be moved each time a new station is tuned in! Of course, multiple stations will probably be on the same satelite - but most listeners/viewers will want to receive several different satelites. "Bandscanners" will find this limiting. Portable shortwave receivers are highly popular, and some sort of portable satelite receiver and antenna is needed for on-the-go viewing/listening on vacation or at the office. When I take my Sony ICF-2010 to work to listen to Radio Australia in the morning, it doesn't matter that my office window faces due south and that the great circle path for radio signals from Australia is to the northwest. I place the radio by the window and the signals bounce around enough or go through walls or whatever that I can get Radio Australia anyway. But for satelite reception the dish must be pointed directly at the satelite without obstructions. If Radio Australia were via a satelite to the northwest of me, it would be impossible to point a dish, no matter how small, in that direction from my office window. A MORE LIMITED SELECTION OF VIEWPOINTS? Jumping back a bit, let's now assume there is some room for international broadcasting on domestic cable systems or via a DBS satelite band. Who is going to be on it? The most likely candidates are the major broadcasters such as the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Radio Netherlands. With the possible exception of Radio Japan, we're looking at a limit to Western European perspectives. Will there be room for the likes of Argentina, Egypt, New Zealand, and Thailand, to name a few? Most shortwave listeners may do most of their listening to a few major broadcasters, but the perspectives of smaller broadcasters help round out and truly internationalize shortwave as a communications medium. I fear that the smaller shortwave voices will be lost when the shift to satelite comes, at least in respect to direct access to a large audience, which the "big boys" have a more realistic chance of getting. Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that all international broadcasters who want it are given access to the U.S. audience via cable or DBS by either audio or video, as the case may be. In times of crisis, how long will that access last? If Baghdad had been available on cable, how long would it have remained so after the invasion of Kuwait? How long would Beijing have lasted after Teinamein square? How about Moscow during much of the Cold War? Here I am not thinking so much of censorship instigated by either the government or the cable operators, although that is always a distinct possibility, but rather of censorship pushed by a small number of closed-minded citizens. How many responsible librarians have been forced against their will to take books off the shelf after vocal complaints by a few narrow individuals? Access to diverse, even opposing, points of view is a central part of shortwave listening. If international broadcasting were done via cable or domestically- controlled DBS, a narrow minority could deny us that access just at the time it is needed most. WHAT YOU GET IS WHAT YOU SEE (OR HEAR) To this point, I've been assuming that the broadcaster wants to reach the particular audience in question, in this case, North America. But what if he isn't trying to be heard (seen) in North America? One advantage of shortwave to the listener is the ability to hear broadcasts directed to other target areas. For example, All India Radio does not intentionally broadcast to North America, but their European service around 2000 hours can often be heard quite well here. Likewise, many North American SWLs enjoy listening to the Afropop music of Africa Number One, which is directed to Africa. For African news, many of us tune in the English language African services of broadcasters such as Deutsche Welle and Radio France. On satelite, all this would be impossible; the footprint for a broadcast to Europe or Africa simply doesn't allow for reception in North America. As an American, I worry about another related side effect of satelite broadcasting: we will no longer be able to tune in VOA broadcasts to other target areas such as Africa or Asia to learn what our government is telling people in other countries. Some stations we hear on shortwave are not international broadcasters at all, but domestic broadcasters using shortwave for a domestic or regional audience. These stations are usually classified as rare DX, but some are easier to hear than many bonafide international broadcasters. I've picked up 60 meter band stations from Venezuela, Colombia, Togo, Nigeria, the Russian Far East, and China (among other places) on simple $40 "1960's technology" receivers without external antennas. On shortwave, a taste of domestic broadcasting in other countries is available to anyone who cares to go looking for it. On satelite, that will be lost. CONCLUSION Satelite broadcasting is coming, whether we like it or not. It obviously will be a vast improvement on what we know now, technologically speaking. The question is, will it be vastly inferior in terms of what we have access to? Myself, I'm pessimistic. Can anyone prove me wrong? NOTE: Permission is granted to all to reprint, electronically repost, and otherwise distribute this article. Comments should be directed to Don Moore; 11434 140th St; Davenport, Iowa, 52804-9538; USA or via e-mail to Internet MOORE@TMU1.MCREST.EDU. Copies of this article are available via e-mail. Don Moore Teikyo Marycrest University Davenport, Iowa, USA