|
| Friday, December 30, 2005 |
 |
Down boy. Never mind. 
Toward better post-Xmas radio reception
| | We need Doc because we get bad reception on our household FM radios, even though we live well within the full signal strength of WBEZ (our local NPR affiliate). The radios downstairs manage all right, but the clock radio in the master bedroom sometimes doesn¹t register a signal at all, sometimes picks up two stations, and receives a fine, clear signal. Sometimes it helps if I¹m holding the clock radio; sometimes it makes a difference if I jiggle the cord; most of the time, the reception stays mediocre. |
| | My sister gave me a fancy, improved clock radio for Christmas, and I was hoping that the problem had been limited to the dime-store clock radio we had been using. The new radio comes with an FM antenna (well, a wire that the packaging calls an FM antenna), so we figured it was bound to zero right in on WBEZ, and we could listen to our hearts' content. |
| | Unfortunately, the problem seems more precisely to reside in the steel-and-stone architecture of our house, or the power lines that run by our bedroom window, or our refusal to conduct animal sacrifices to the arbitrary demons who control radio signal propagation. Whatever the reason, you can bet that if Doc ever comes for a visit, we'll drag him upstairs and ask, "What¹s with this?" |
| | Okay, AKMA's home is (presumably) in the viscinity of Seabury, which seems not to have a simple physical street address anywhere on its website. Directions, yes; address, no. |
| | Looks like it's not that far from Chicago, in Evanston, next door to Northwestern. So it's pretty much in the Chicago metro. Shouldn't have much trouble getting the signal. Okay... Here's a computed coverage map, showing Evanston getting a strong signal from WBEZ's 8300-watt signal, presumably from the Hancock Building. In fact, nine stations use the same antenna at roughly the same output power, when the link at that last report was written. |
| | Hmm... I appears, from looking here and here, that many of those stations, including WBEZ, have either already already moved up to the top of the Sears Tower, or are on their way there. All these stations (except WFMT, which is grandfathered at a slightly higher power) were originally licensed to radiate 50kw from 500 feet above average terrain. To get the signal out over buildings, however, they have long radiated from higher places, trading watts for vantage, on a sliding scale provided by the FCC. So WBEZ currently has a license to radiate 8300 watts at 360 meters (Hancock site), and a construction permit for 5300 watts at 425 meters (Sears site). |
| | Anyway, one of the trade offs in watts for height is signal strength. The signal reaches farther, but with less punch. This helps with cars, which are outdoors most of the time, and where most radio listening happens. New York stations have the same feature, by the way. No FMs in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, Boston or other old metros in the rust belt, are stronger than Chicago's. In fact, they're all pretty dinky compared to, say, an average large FM in North Carolina, Missouri or North Dakota. There the maximum power is 100,000 watts at 2000 feet, and lots of stations are up in that range. Grandfathered at exceptionally high powers in California are KPFK in Los Angeles, with 110,000 watts at 2380 feet; and KQED in San Francisco, with 110,000 watts at 1200 feet. |
| | Anyway, several culprits, quite aside from the transmitter situation.. |
| | One is that clock radios often use the power cord as the antenna. Not a great system. Walkmen radios use the headphone cord the same way. |
| | Second is that most FM radios these days flat-out suck. They're not as good as their ancestors by a long shot. Standard cheap parts, basically. The exception is car radios, which have to be relatively good to work where they do. Nearly ever car radio is better than anything you'll find in a clock or even a home stereo receiver. |
| | Third, the steel-and-stone problem is a real one. It's hurting the signals. We have the same problem in our house, with stucco, which is a kind of rock-on-chickenwire-mesh. |
| | One suggestion: listen off the Net on a computer, and get a little FM transmitter to distribute it to the radios in the house. |
| | Another: get a good portable radio. They are made. I like the Grundig S350, which you can get for under $100 many places on the Web. Also the GE Super Radio, which usually costs about $50. Both are great signal-suckers and will do a great job on AM as well as FM. |
Feeds for thought
| | Would it be impossible to describe what a "fee" is, without actually describing the technologies and languages used? What I mean to say is, can we possibly avoid mentioning that a feed is generally an XML document? I have it on good authority to say that my Mother will never know what XML is, and never should need to know in order to use feeds. |
| | Then the first paragraph of his proposed definition: |
| | A "feed" is a way of syndicating almost any type of content (be it articles, essays, plain or rich text, images, audio, or video) in a simple and portable way. Feeds are generally used to distribute frequently updated content, such as news and notifications. An example of this would be CNNs feeds, which provide headline feeds on various topics to keep their readers up-to-date with news. |
| | And his concluding sentence: |
| | I look forward to seeing anyone improve on the above, and perhaps add it to their own sites, to help those that do not enjoy feeds as we all do. |
| | Here it's especially clear to me how conversational blogs are, and how provisional their most useful posts can be. |
| | By contrast, wikis are finished-looking documents. They look and often serve (as does Wikipedia) as a final document. Their authority derives to a large degree from their apparent finality, and their utility as an authoritative source. The conversational vetting process isn't clear in the published text. |
| | Blogs, on the other hand, are easier to parse. You know they're the work (usually) of one person, making a series of posts over time. They're more crumb trail than bread. |
| | And both the last paragraphs are provisional as well. They're what I think today. Subject to improvement or replacement later today or tomorrow. |
| | Back to Colin's first point, I wonder if two years from now his Mom will be getting more of her news from watching CNN or from reading (and watching, and listening to) CNN feeds? |
| | By the way, those of us with radio and TV backgrounds know that member stations in a broadcast network (e.g. NBC, CBS, AP) get news reports and story-building material (interviews, footage) in the form of "feeds". |
| | I remember once, when I was a Sunday morning DJ at WDNC in Durham, NC, heading to the bathroom after putting on a long song — "MacArthur Park", perhaps, or "Hey Jude" — and sitting there listening to the song, when a squawky voice came on amidst the music and said, "Good morning stations. Got a report coming up on (some news subject) ten seconds from ... mark." Turns out I had left the CBS "pot" (volume control) on after the news ran. A rookie mistake. |
| | Taught me about feeds, though. |
Just don't burn
RSS/XML help wanted
Testing a theory on corporate blogging
| | Perhaps, Doc wondered, the risks and uncertainties of public business blogging are so great that big companies only do it under duress, when their traditional corporate messaging has lost traction. So companies on the way up don't want to mess with their success by introducing a new lens on the enterprise that isn't controlled by the PR department. But companies on the way down are willing to try anything to regain the confidence of their customers. |
| | Hmm, I thought. That's testable. Let's look at which of the Fortune 500 companies are blogging and compare their past twelve month share performance with those that aren't. If this theory stands up, the blogging members of the F500 will have underperformed the nonblogging members. And then we can also see if blogging makes a difference going forward, by continuing to follow the two cohorts. |
| | So I asked our research department to check it out. And they quickly discovered that the problem is that there's no good list of F500 company blogs. |
| | Thus, the Fortune 500 Business Blogging Wiki. With a deserved thanks to Ross Mayfield. Be interesting to see where that goes (and how it grows). My guess is that it comes down to controlling vs. trusting cultures. With lots of gray overlap between the two. |
| | Meanwhile, some background. |
| | I believe this thread — about why some companies blog and others don't — began with a conversation Hugh MacLeod and I had a couple years back, about branding. I wrote, |
| | Ever notice that the companies that tolerate, and even encourage, blogging... also suck at branding? I mean, they succeed as companies. Meaning, they market well, in their own ways. But their advertising has never been award-winning stuff. They don't hire expensive agencies and employ Professionals who Manage The Brand. Their image isn't top-drawer. Companies that rock at branding (by which I mean, they do really good, award-winning advertising).... Apple... Sony... Coke... Anheuser-Busch... Nike... Gap... aren't known for their bloggers. |
| | That's easy enough to explain. Blogging is all about ECO-logy. Branding is all about EGO-logy. The two are not compatible. Which is why brand-wimpy Microsoft has hundreds of bloggers [a well-known fact], and why you can get fired for blogging at uber-brand Apple [so I've been told]. |
| | Apple like the conversation they're currently having. They don't want it to change, internally or externally. They want to control the means of conversation. |
| | I've seen branding work. I've seen blogging work. My conclusion? |
| | It's just that Apple has a Brand Culture, and Microsoft has ... something else. Whatever it is, it's a lot more blog-friendly. |
| | And Hugh, who is more emphatic about these things, went on to drive the Branding is Dead meme. |
Overseen
Fueling around
| | Having fun playing with the little graphic on the right. Will change the subject from time to time. |
discuss
Copyright 2008 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
