msmith@RUTGERS.EDU> (01/10/90)
I subscribed to the 1989 DOWNLINK. I found it worthless if you subscribe to either Pop'Comm or Monitoring Times. Those magazines come more often, and carry the same information. In 1989, DOWNLINK looked nice (I guess they straightened out that problem), but was repeatedly late. I never got an issue in the month on the cover, always one month later. The only useful information was the frequency listing. However, these same lists were duplicated in the magazines mentioned above in a more timely fashion. The reviews they did during the 1989 season were not worth the cost. In other words, I am not subscribing to DOWNLINK this year. Mark -- Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu
roskos@THINK.COM> (01/18/90)
eric@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Eric Wertz) writes: >Did anyone out there subscribe to DOWNLINK in 1989? >What I would like to know is how any of the 1989 DOWNLINK subscribers >found the production of last year's newsletter. >Was DOWNLINK any better or more timely in 1989? I subscribed to DOWNLINK in 1989; I have decided not to renew it next year. The information just isn't as good as what you can get on a much more regular and complete basis from Monitoring Times, or, if you have particular stations of interest, by writing to the stations for schedules. They also wasted a lot of space, in my opinion, giving long (many pages) lists of relatively esoteric information (e.g., where the transmitter for each BBC frequency was located). This information is marginally interesting, but not the sort of thing one would expect from an infrequent publication that is supposed to be an update of the WRTH. I'd really have liked it to have contained "update pages" for WRTH rather than this very loosely-formatted and often sketchy information. The review articles tended not to be as good as the ones in WRTH, either; in particular, I remember an article in one issue which said basically "we got this interesting software but we don't know where it came from. If anybody knows where it came from, let us know, but it looks like really good software." This kind of information is not too useful; reminds me too much of Popular Communications. They are reducing their frequency of publication next year, too. I realize the above sounds very critical, but I've paid a good bit for it for two years now, and have tended to be disappointed with the content of each issue. It's just not up to the quality of WRTH. -- Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)