This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radio broadcasting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Stations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Radio High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Telecommunications Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), CBS Radio: Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, radio station, Clear Channel Communications, CBS, Viacom, Cumulus Media, Citadel Broadcasting, corporation, CBS Corporation, CBS Radio Network, Alphascript Publishing{{ citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) Additional comments OCLC  715421376, ISBN  9786130723187.

This sounds an awful lot like a dictionary entry. It would be nice to have a history of radio stations and some information about how they have affected modern culture (and been affected). Chadloder 04:46 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Agreement

I absolutely agree. I only wrote this as a beginning to get it off the most wanted list, and hoped that people would add to it. -- user:jaknouse — Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 24 January 2003 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but, we still want it, and now those who use that list to decide what to add won't see it there any more.

Don't forget pirate radio stations, they have their own colorful history, and are a very important cultural force in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.75.31 ( talk) 05:14, 24 January 2003 (UTC) reply

For weird reasons, Illnois, Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts are in the "W", or "Dubya", side, and Texas, Utah, and Iowa are in the "K", or "Kerry", side.

However, few states are accurately placed. California, Oregon, and Washington are in the "K" side, and Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are in the "W" side. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:03, 2 January 2005 ( talk)

For those confused by this entry, it is a political joke. Actually most stations east of the Mississippi river have call letters beginning with W and stations west of the Mississippi have call letters beginning with K. There are exceptions, mostly because the rule was introduced after a number of stations (KDKA - Pittsburgh, WHO - Des Moines, IA, for example) were licensed. -- Blainster 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This also has to do with a station's city of license, in cases where the station is close to the Mississippi (such as several stations in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN area) DC 14:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Did KDKA not broadcat a baseball game first or was it WBZ? Scott 02:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Note: The following three paragraphs are not technically accurate and require extensive editing. For example, spacing between stations was set to permit wideband FM (+/- 75 kHz deviation), with the remaining 50 kHz to provide some protection from adjacent channel interference. Also, low-pass filter in stereo FM generators limits highest audio frequency to 15 kHz.

-- Blainster 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have just removed a recent edit and some existing material about the reasons for AM Stereo's lack of acceptance. If we want to lay the blame on the FCC we must find a source for that information (because we don't do original research at WP. Also, we would need to locate and fairly treat all opposing points of view. Also, this doesn't address the fact that AM stereo did not catch on outside the US either. -- cmh 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

KDKA is listed here as being the first radio station on the air in North America in 1920. However, CFCF radio in Montreal began broadcasting in 1919, the previous year. I know for sure that CFCF was the first radio station to regularly broadcast in North America. Just thought I'd bring this up to your attention. Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.124.111 ( talk) 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

CINW (AM), formerly CFCF-AM, claims program broadcasts began on May 20, 1920, still nearly six months ahead of KDKA. -- Blainster 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Can someone explain why American (US) radio stations have names which seem to be random concatenations of letters? Are they call signs? What's the history behind that? Wooster (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Station call sign prefixes were apportioned around the world early in the 20th century. US commercial radio stations have four call letters beginning with "K" (west of the Mississippi river) or "W" (east of the Missisippi). There are historical exceptions, with some stations dating to the 1920s having just three letters, and some "K" and "W" stations ignoring the dividing line (see North American call sign). The succeeding three letters can be requested from the FCC at the time of licensing if the combination is otherwise unassigned, and are sometimes incorporated into an acronym or initialism for marketing purposes. -- Blainster 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would also add that callsigns are absolutely unique in the world, which is really the whole point. Monikers, on the other hand, are not -- they are usually used at several stations in different media markets, sometimes even with the same frequency number (often truncated or rounded to a whole number on FM, and on AM formerly dropping the final 0 sometimes [like 780 becomes 78], which was used to save space on analog-tuning dial radios). Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Bahamas also use this, as do a few shortwave stations like HCJB. Australia used to, but broadcast stations went from VL5UV to 5UV to just Radio Adelaide now, for example.

I'm hoping someone can help me clean up some articles. There are several Mexican radio stations serving U.S. markets, primarily San Diego. The infobox used for many of them has the station's class included (Class A, B, C). I'm still new to Wikipedia and know noting about infoboxes. However, I'm pretty sure the FCC isn't assigning station classes to Mexican stations. Thus, as in Canada, the station class should be deleted, right? Maybe someone can check these out and fix them. Goeverywhere 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

the globalize tag is the first thing visible on this page. Reading though the discussion here on the talk page though, I see no mention of why the tag was added. Would anyone care to elaborate, please? - Ohms law 12:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see no reason for this tag to be here. If there are concerns they need to be spelled out. This question has been here on the talk page for nearly a year and noone seems to care enough to answer it. I'm removing the tag.-- Rtphokie 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Why is it that a radio station will be listed as one city when it's actually based in another city far away (i.e. KFNK-Eatonville is actually based 25 miles away in Tacoma, not Eatonville)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustN5:12 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC). reply

I assume you are talking about FM. There is a table of separation requirements which the FCC maintains at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/spacing/index.html. The idea nowadays is to find any "hole" you can which meets separation requirements per all available frequencies. If you do, you can plop down an FM radio station. These "holes" can be in strange places. My in-laws are in a triangle of land 3 miles on a side where I could put a 50,000 watt (class C-2) FM station, if I had the money. I have a friend whose brother wheeled in a temporary building alongside an interstate in the boonies just because he found such a hole. But, the FCC also says that a license must be tied to a town or city through an "allotment". The location of the antenna must be within 25 miles of the allotment. For commercial reasons, stations which have a choice of allotments will usually pick the biggest town, so it looks like they are a bigger station. For example, 93.9 in central Illinois is allotted to Lincoln, but the antenna is also within 25 miles of Springfield, so they will say Springfield even though the license emanates from Lincoln. Listen carefully: if the bigger town is farther than 25 miles, they must use the real town of license, but can add on anything else they wish afterward, e.g., "93.9 WWWW Lincoln Springfield". Otherwise, if the station really is farther away, the one you are listening to is either a "translator" (low-power remote transmitter) or under an LMA (local marketing agreement) contract for the other station to provide the programming. Absentee owners often do this latter thing.

Back in April, the following was removed when vandalism was removed: A radio station is an audio (sound) broadcasting service, traditionally broadcast through the air as radio waves (a form of electromagnetic radiation) from a transmitter to an antenna and a thus to a receiving device. Stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast common programming, either in syndication or simulcast or both.

What is left is only the "other" ways that "radio" programming can be distributed. What credible evidence is there for the expansion of the term "radio broadcasting" to be expanded to include distribution that does not involve the transmission of an electromagnetic signal through the air? I believe pretty strongly that "internet streaming" is *not* "radio". Nothing in this article supports the idea that transmission over the internet is "radio", other than the first sentence. StreamingRadioGuide 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I inserted the obviously missing description. ( SEWilco 04:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

This article has been renamed from radio station to radio broadcasting as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 06:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Please include information about DIY stations in the article. The DIY station described only cost 1€ See DIY station

81.246.154.99 ( talk) 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Doesnt really belong here as these are primarily intended for communications between two (or more) people rather than broadcasting (which is actually prohibited on CB and Amateur frequencies in moany countries)

Although in some countries religious services can be legally transmitted on CB frequencies while In the very early days of amateur radio licence holders were allowed to broadcast music (In the early 1920's this was "temporairly" outlawed and was never relegalised) back in those very early days the distinction between amateur and broadcast radio was quite fuzzy. 213.40.112.230 ( talk) 11:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Where do the station names come from? Fruckert ( talk) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In the section Types three types of radio wave broadcasting have been listed: SW, AM and FM. I think this categorisation is erronous . Because SW broadcasting is also AM. The difference between LW, MW and SW is in the carrier frequency, LW broadcasting has the lowest and SW broadcasting has the highest frequency of the three. But the modulation technique is the same; namely AM. So I think SW must be included within AM. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

AM is correct, regarding entertainment or public broadcasters. Other comms must now use SSB, or FM as appropriate. Only aircraft comms still use AM on VHF, as it came into use circa a 1940. Marine AM was phased out in 1973. The very first comms systems used spark-gap coils for xmit, and huge iron coils driving galvenometers as recievers. Spark gaps were outlawed circa WW1. 203.219.80.29 ( talk) 06:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I am wondering whether this page could be enhanced by some of the now amusing quotations said about radio. These include:

"Radio has no future" Lord Kelvin "The radio craze will die out in time" Thomas Edison

And was there not an early comment on radio broadcasting that it would never work, because "who would want to spend time listening to messages sent to no one in particular"? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

No. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply

There are numerous mentions of "power", a link to "Low power stations" in the See also section and the radio station template also includes a Power attribute, but nowhere is it explained what this "power" means in real terms. Is 1000 watts a little or a lot? How far away could that be received? Etc. danno_ uk 01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The fact in the introduction "In 2009, there were 3,494 radio broadcasting stations in the United States." is a bit country-specific, it's not like only the Americans have radio broadcasting technology??? is it really necessary to put this here, in the introduction? Is there some sort of place where we could find how many radio broadcasting stations there are in the world (or at least an estimate) to replace this? ~J349 ( talk) 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Simply referring to broadcasting as "unidirectional" without any definition, while not technically wrong, is extremely misleading. Simply linking to the article "Simplex" does not address this. The word does not even appear in that article, nor is simplex strictly synonymous even if we limit consideration to this one, frankly rather obscure, sense of the word. In the context of radio communications unidirectional is used in 2 senses - as the opposite of bidirectional, basically a communications-topology thing; and as the opposite of omnidirectional, which is a physical thing pertaining primarily, but not exclusively, to antennas. It would be a very rare anglophone indeed who would read this article and not already know that radio broadcasting stations are NOT bidirectional, so the word contributed essentially NO useful information to the sentence. Certainly, the number of people who would be enlightened to discover that they can't talk into their radio and expect the DJ to respond will be far less than the number who would find this word misleading or confusing. I go on at length about this because I thought simply omitting the word made for a clearer and shorter sentence without ambiguity, but the edit was reversed.

I think the lead sentence as I left it -

"Radio broadcasting is wireless transmission by radio waves of a signal intended to reach a wide audience, without provision for any return signal."

-while needlessly prolix, and inferior to simply omitting the word "unidirectional", at least has the merit of being unambiguous and preserving the the point that radio broadcasting is a one-way communication, not a conversation. I don't really think that point NEEDS to be made as I doubt anyone will read this article who doesn't already consider it obvious. I'd be happy to have the second sentence I inserted afterwards deleted, as I don't think defining one rather obscure sense of the word "unidirectional" contributes anything of value to this article, but, if you are partial to the word, at least this is better than including it in a way that is misleading.

- - - -

"Ooookay." Some "clever" person keeps reverting changes to maintain the presence of this word in the lead sentence while removing any attempt to define it. And then they ignore this talk section and simply put smart remarks in the field where they are supposed to justify their edits. I don't think I can improve on what I already wrote here about why the inclusion of this word adds absolutely nothing to this article that any likely reader doesn't already know, and why it is potentially confusing. But if you are going to insist on using it, it needs to be defined. I've done so, with as short a sentence as possible. Unless it has been added, the word "unidirectional" doesn't even appear in the article the word "unidirectional" is linked to here. Hopefully, this short definition will not offend the editor's apparent desire for obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 ( talk) 20:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Way too wordy, and really, a redundant definition in true Wikipedia style...it's unlikely someone looking up "broadcasting" isn't already aware of at least that much of how it works, but is probably more interested in "why" and "who" and "when" of milestones. Any Wikipedia article that gets bogged down in the definitions of "simplex", "duplex" and "half-duplex" is usually improved by removing any such references and just describing what is meant in that context. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2023 in radio and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 6 § 2023 in radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply