Saturday Morning
Does anybody listen to the radio anymore?
Roughly 25 years ago the nation’s television viewing practices began a transformation from over-the-air signal reception to programming being delivered via cable. Up until then, cable tv was an innovation used in rural areas and expanses in the mid-west and west to deliver regular television signals to residents in isolated areas. Before the “cable” part of the transmission came into use, the television providers erected these huge antenna towers on mountain tops to catch distant tv station’s signals, then they would clean up the signals and re-transmit them to their subscribers who received the programming through a proprietary “box” much like we do now. In the 1970′s some of the re-transmission companies took advantage of the advances in cable technology and started stringing up small towns that were too far away from television stations to receive signals.
It was in the late 1970′s that a communications satellite was launched that was permitted to accept domestic (non-military) use when Ted Turner, an billboard advertising firm proprietor in Atlanta, took the signal from a small, local UHF station that he owned and “uplinked” it to one of those satellites. He then sold the retransmission rights to those country cable systems, called it a Super Station, and from there it was Katy-bar-the-door.
Radio listening habits are entirely different, mainly because of the ability to receive the signal on cheap, portable receivers that don’t have to be stationary. Moving vehicles can receive radio signals easily and clearly and you can now get a pocket-size receiver at Walmart for as little as $5. But radio programming started sliding into the tank about 20 years ago when a few large companies started buying up local radio stations that were losing listeners primarily due to the now-expansive choice of tv stations offering a large variety of specialized programming. These large radio operators thought that the future lay in targeted, researched programming and suddenly we ended up with 30 radio stations in each city that were all playing the same stuff. It has evolved to the point where the only time anyone listens to the radio anymore is while riding in their cars to and from work. The exception is the so-called talk radio format which is popular among people who have the time to listen to it, and that is the sole reason that many of the radio stations are financially viable anymore.
Recognizing this dearth of choices and variety in the “terrestrial” radio spectrum, two new fields of radio-style delivery sprang up. One is the internet based stations and the other is a satellite based provider that is the product of a merger between two innovative firms, XM and Sirrius. For a long while the satellite company had the edge because you could receive the signals anywhere including your car. The only hitch was that you had to buy an expensive receiver and pay a monthly fee (a la cable tv) to get the signals. The satellite radio offers a virtually unlimited number of program choices with no advertising and is a terrific way to listen to radio now. But with the introduction of the iPad internet receiver, the computer stations have a chance to make an intrusion into the listening market.
But what I am wondering, is there still a market for “radio” listening? When it comes to music, huge numbers of people are using downloads and CD’s to make their own playlists. That only leaves live sports announcing and talk formats to support very expensive delivery systems. My own opinion says that the satellite broadcasting is the most practical, and affordable, but the number of subscribers is still relatively low despite sales gimmincks like having receivers built into new automobiles. I have to admit that I don’t have any plans on signing up, mostly because of the monthly fee obligation. I just don’t listen to the radio anymore. Who does?
We all need to keep our equipment at the ready, though. So let’s get it checked out and I’ll get another pot of coffee started.
* * * * * * *













































































Fire Departments Taking a Beating
Comments OffWe're the Whipping Boys (Again)
a commentary
We're all a bunch of union thugs and parasites; the new welfare queens. Oh wait, that's just what I heard. My observation teaches me that the fire service as a whole is a whipping boy and perennial doormat. But what is experience when there are people LOUDLY TALKING on cable news?
What is happening in Wisconsin should be getting a lot more play in the fire service than it is. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the IAFF's fortunes nationwide. Are you paying attention? Where do you stand? Before you default to whatever side you were raised to support, consider your own department and all the departments you hear of regularly. I think it is plain that the local-government administrators of this country cannot be trusted to provide for the public safety and the safety of our firefighters. City after county after city after fire district has made the decisions that imperil our neighbors and our brother and sister firefighters. Hare-brained schemes abound as politicians and city managers shift scarce funds to more immediately visible projects that they can stand in front of and put their names on. Whatever the faults of organized labor, the IAFF and its locals have saved lives and property nationwide by minimizing the other side's abilities to carry out its dangerous publicity schemes.
FireRescue1
That doesn't even touch the surface of the benefits and restrictions that can be negotiated through collective bargaining. It does touch each of us in the fire service, whether we are union members, non-union paid guys, or volunteers. It is obvious to me that the IAFF has been the single greatest driver of the things we use to ensure minimum staffing, be it a contract article, an NFPA standard, or a state law. This battle intimately affects every one of us in the fire service before it even touches on our pensions or paychecks. Pay attention and prepare yourself for what comes next.
* * * * * * *