6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) (01/18/90)
From article <9001171735.AA13398@prism.gatech.edu>, by dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson): > This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup > to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. There is a new mailing list for just this purpose. Perhaps we should wait to see whether it warrants traffic before making a new group for it. mail listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, and include the string "sub dj-l Your Name" in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
sdroppers@pbs.uucp (Seton Droppers) (01/18/90)
In article <9001171735.AA13398@prism.gatech.edu>, dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson) writes: > This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup > to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. > > Subjects discussed might include > - non-commercial AM/FM radio of the college and NPR variety > - carrier current and cable based radio > - do trade journals such as CMJ and Rockpool manipulate or aid? > - upcoming conventions such as the Nat'l Assoc. of Broadcasters/BEA > meeting in Atlanta and the Intercollegiate Broadcasters Society in NY > - the newly released "Public Radio in the 1990s" report by The Public > Radio Expansion Task Force > - the FCC and its regulations > - obtaining and managing non-commercial grants > > Rob Gibson, General Manager, WREK 91.1 MHz > Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 404/894-2468 > uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dsrekrg > ARPA: dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu Sounds like a good idea to me. What sort of people are out there, might we want to also include the full range of public broadcasting, both radio and TV? I present the expansion as an idea, I am not sure if it makes sense or not, what do others think? -- Seton Droppers -- "Anything that I say is my opinion and not my employer's." Public Broadcasting Service, 1320 Braddock Pl. Alexandria, VA 22314 (UUCP: ...{csed-1,ida.org,vrdxhq}!pbs!sdroppers) (Voice: 703/739-5100) (VAX/VMS running DECUS UUCP 1.1, ANU News 5.9C)
dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) (01/19/90)
>Sounds like a good idea to me. What sort of people are out there, might we >want to also include the full range of public broadcasting, both radio and TV? >I present the expansion as an idea, I am not sure if it makes sense or not, >what do others think? >-- >Seton Droppers My first thought is that traffic about radio AND TV might get confusing. I think like that because my experience is limited to radio broadcasting. Rob Gibson, General Manager, WREK 91.1 MHz Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dsrekrg ARPA: dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (01/20/90)
In article <5020@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) writes: >My first thought is that traffic about radio AND TV might get confusing. >I think like that because my experience is limited to radio broadcasting. I don't know; I don't usually have any trouble telling the difference between the two. I've worked both in college radio and in public television, and while there is some difference, there is a large area where the issues intersect. -- Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com att!lzfme!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) (01/20/90)
Rob Gibson writes: > >Subjects discussed might include >- non-commercial AM/FM radio of the college and NPR variety I would suggest that the bulk of interest would come from folks affiliated with college radio stations, and that the NPR type issues that arise might only be contrasting examples. >- carrier current and cable based radio Good! These are frequently the way college stations start out, at least in my experience. Cable radio, however, is becoming more popular amongst other groups as well. >- do trade journals such as CMJ and Rockpool manipulate or aid? This might also be covered to a large extent by the nm-list from UF. Actually, all of these topics might already be covered there. I'm not on nm-list, because I don't *always* have the time to spend on these topics. I would be in favor of such a group. I would suggest that someone on nm-list comment on their activity, and whether they would expect to be lost on the flood of activity on such a group. I suspect that this group would belong in the soc. heirarchy, except that there are various rec.tv.xxx and rec.arts.wobegon groups. I would suggest either soc.radio.college or rec.radio.college, although xxx.radio.noncom might work as well. I'm not sure about the distribution such a group should receive, as broadcasting in other countries differs substantially from that in the US. I'm not sure of the interest in this group, but I expect it would be high. I know of eight former general managers of ktru (Houston) on the net, and expect that other college stations may be similarly represented. If the interest is high enough, perhaps xxx.radio.conferences, xxx.radio.fcc, xxx.radio.licensing, xxx.radio.staff, or some such might be reasonable. I guess that we'll all see. William J. Watson 1980-1983 Chief Engineer, and continuing consultant ktru-fm Rice University Houston, TX 77251-1892 -- William J. Watson (cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, watson@halley.mpd.tandem.com, watson@halley.uucp)
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/20/90)
dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson) writes: >> This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup >> to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. >> >> Subjects discussed might include >> - non-commercial AM/FM radio of the college and NPR variety >> - carrier current and cable based radio >> - do trade journals such as CMJ and Rockpool manipulate or aid? >> - upcoming conventions such as the Nat'l Assoc. of Broadcasters/BEA >> meeting in Atlanta and the Intercollegiate Broadcasters Society in NY >> - the newly released "Public Radio in the 1990s" report by The Public >> Radio Expansion Task Force >> - the FCC and its regulations >> - obtaining and managing non-commercial grants Some of this might be interesting to the the rec.radio.shortwave folks; their original charter was quite broad. Some of it might be interesting to the rec.arts.wobegon (de facto rec.arts.npr) folks. Of the rest, is it of broad enough interest that, as the default, it is propagated to all hosts? Have you thought about a mailing list? I haven't seen any name proposals. How 'bout rec.radio.public? -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (01/21/90)
In article <3626@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes: |From article <9001171735.AA13398@prism.gatech.edu>, by dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson): |> This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup |> to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. | |There is a new mailing list for just this purpose. Perhaps we should wait |to see whether it warrants traffic before making a new group for it. Nah. Let's go for the group. And let's keep it to radio, not tv. The tv folx can start a group, too, if they want. And I agree with whoever said rec.radio.public would sound too restrictive - we'd get folks frustrated because it wasn't NPR, and folks who never saw it because they assumed it was. The basic charter looked good to me... -Miles O'Neal {yr fave backbone here}!emory!stiatl!meo (an old WREK news-driver)
6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) (01/21/90)
From article <8597@stiatl.UUCP>, by meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal): > In article <3626@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes: > |From article <9001171735.AA13398@prism.gatech.edu>, by dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson): > |> This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup > |> to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. > |There is a new mailing list for just this purpose. Perhaps we should wait > |to see whether it warrants traffic before making a new group for it. > Nah. Let's go for the group. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but that's not the way things work. Standard practice is to start a mailing list first. It may not be in the guidelines (I honestly don't remember), but it's standard practice. I'll vote against it until the mailing list gets a decent amount of traffic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (01/21/90)
In article <386@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >>> This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup >>> to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. >Some of this might be interesting to the the rec.radio.shortwave folks; >their original charter was quite broad. >Some of it might be interesting to the rec.arts.wobegon (de facto >rec.arts.npr) folks. >Of the rest, is it of broad enough interest that, as the default, it is >propagated to all hosts? Have you thought about a mailing list? I would tend to agree with this. What the original poster seemed to be proposing was a kind of coffee klatch of people involved in college radio to discuss common concerns. That's kind of an elite group (in the sense that there isn't a general population interested in the subject). That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a group with a wider charter of the type that some of the discussion seems to be heading in, with discussion of all aspects of public broadcasting, from the original proposal to the opinions of viewers/listeners. I would, however, be interested in a group or a mailing list with either focus. >I haven't seen any name proposals. How 'bout rec.radio.public? That sounds like a good name to me. Ralph Brandi ex-WDFM (Penn State student radio, 1981-1985, Program Director 1984) ex-WPSX-TV (PBS affiliate, central PA, 1983-1986) -- Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com att!lzfme!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (01/22/90)
In article <3664@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes: >> Nah. Let's go for the group. >I appreciate your enthusiasm, but that's not the way things work. Standard >practice is to start a mailing list first. It may not be in the guidelines >(I honestly don't remember), but it's standard practice. Nah. Greg Woods changed the guidelines to discourage people from starting mailing lists. Since you can't use the mailing list to justify the newsgroup anymore, you'd be an idiot to start one if you really wanted a newsgroup. Why shoot yourself in the foot? Better to just go for a newsgroup and get it over with. If a legitimate topic, like this one, is voted down by bozos while fishy.groups get 3 newsgroups, then I say it's time to abandon the stupid guidelines. >I'll vote against it until the mailing list gets a decent amount of traffic. Go ahead. I wasn't going to vote at all. Now, I'll vote yes. Brian
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (01/26/90)
In article <9001171735.AA13398@prism.gatech.edu>, Rob Gibson writes:
*This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup
*to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio.
as might be expected, i strongly recommend creating
rec.radio.misc
first and then spinning off more specific groups as demonstrated
demand shows a need.
but then, you all knew that was coming.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``air holes!? nobody said anything to me about air holes''meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (02/03/90)
In article <9002020603.AA22281@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) writes: | |(Of course we could always have talk.radio ... ;-) NO!!! Radio is based on SCIENCE and...excuse me. Wrong argument! 8^) I think some of the other proposed groups (*.radio.tech, etc) all have their place, but again, they don't relate that much to the proposed charter. While there are any number of issues that various broadcasters & types thereof have in common, those are separate issues. -Miles
nigel@sund.cc.ic.ac.uk (Nigel Whitfield) (02/04/90)
In article <659@halley.UUCP> watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) writes: > >However, I want to make clear that the >group I am interested in is for discussion by those *operating* radio >stations, Seconded; although we have a small mailing list in the uk for people involved with student stations, there are other groups that are not represented at all, like the new incrementals, and I believe that there is probably a lot of useful experience out there that could be of help to the new wave of stations coming on line here. >If I understand correctly, the two hierarchies may well >have different distributions, which may provide a good reason for >chosing one over the other. (i.e. I understand that rec.* doesn't >make it to Australia/New Zealand. Is this important?) Well, I think it's very important to get as wide a distribution as possible. The problems of non-commerical radio have been approached in different ways in France, the UK and Australia amongst others. The Australian situation is certainly one that many people in the UK are looking at for guidance, and I think it would be a mistake to choose a name that may unduly restrict the coverage of the group. Nigel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Nigel Whitfield, | n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk | | Community Radio Association. | poet@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Internet: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu | | BITNET: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@UKACRL | | UUCP: ...!cernvax!cc.imperial.ac.uk!n.whitfield * NOT via ukc * | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) (02/07/90)
peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) writes: > Since this will be for commercial as well as for nocommercial stations, > shouldn't this go in biz.radio? > Aren't the rec.* groups for non-commercial discussions? > I would favor a radio group as well, and I agree that it is difficult to > categorize. If it were for *listener* discussion, I would well put it in > rec.*. If it were for *professional* discussion (as proposed), I would put > it in biz.*. ... > I'm not sure I see why it should go in soc.* ... He also pointed out, validly, that the heirarchies are for content, not distribution, else eveything would be sci.* or comp.*. I feel that the group probably belong in soc.*, talk.*, or misc.*, but as I'm not an expert in the drawing of fine lines between such groups, I will just state my reasoning, and let others comment on the appropriate place for the group. 1) biz: *Professionally* run stations have numerous channels for communication, and tend not to be affiliated with colleges or other news locations. While I don't want to exclude discussions of matters that apply to commercial outfits, I would not expect such matters to take up much of the bandwidth of the group. I don't think that any business is likely to use the group as a means of furthering their operations. Should such an eventuality rear itself, we would have to deal with the consequences. 2) rec: While most of the posters in this discussion (I assume) are at least tangentially involved in the operation of radio stations, I expect that few make a living at it. Thus, it could be argued that this is a mere pasttime, and worthy of inculsion in rec.*. I suspect that many would feel more of a commitment than this implies, and that such a classification might feel more appropriate for a newgsroup of listeners. 3) soc: I feel that I'm on weak ground here, in that I'm not exactly sure what the precise definition of a soc group is. soc.culture.* sounds like discussion of a sociological nature, while soc.singles sounds like social discussion, that may turn to sociology occasionally. I think that the proposed group would tend to have a fair amount of discussion of censorship and the uses to which the airwaves are put, making it a valid candidate for this classification. 4) talk: I expect a fair amount of discussion to arise, so this *might* be the right place. 5) misc: If we can't figure it out, or can't justify putting it anywhere else, perhaps here? 6) alt: If the proposal fails, but we can still get someone to newgroup it. 7-) comp, mod, news, sci: All don't fit the proposal at all. Did I miss any? William -- William J. Watson (cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, watson@halley.mpd.tandem.com, watson@halley.uucp)
dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) (02/08/90)
This is getting confusing. All I want to do is take part in a forum
for listeners and creators of noncommercial radio.
Rob Gibson, General Manager, WREK 91.1 MHz
40000 watts of non-commercial diversity, 404/894-2468
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dsrekrg
ARPA: dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edumeo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (02/09/90)
In article <5786@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) writes: |This is getting confusing. All I want to do is take part in a forum |for listeners and creators of noncommercial radio. Yes, some folks are off on a tangent. If someone wants to start a formal discussion of rec.radio.misc as a place for stuff that is currently not wanted in ham-radio or shortwave, that's fine. In fact, maybe that would divert people away from this issue who don't really care about noncommercial radio. -Miles