Catching up

A veritable cornucopia of topics this week:

A major passing of the guard this week: The company that built out the original telephone network and ruled it as a monopoly, AT&T, is asking the FCC to phase out the circuit-switched legacy network and transition to broadband and IP-based communications.

"With each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and IP-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network ("PSTN") and plain-old telephone service ("POTS") as relics of a by-gone era," the company wrote in comments filed with the FCC.

Congress has charged the FCC with creating a National Broadband Plan and AT&T was commenting on that plan. The commission must martial its resources to ensure the "necessary deployment of the enormous amount of infrastructure necessary" for service to be available to 100 percent of the population, according to AT&T.

No kidding! (And want to hear something weird? Blogspot would not allow me to use an ampersand in a post label for this article! Odd.)

Second topic: lots of chatter lately about how to measure Internet ad effectiveness, or just how to measure things like audio streaming sources. HERE is a link to a recent podcast on the subject that makes some good points. And raises a bunch of questions, not just on that topic. (Thanks to John WA5MFL for forwarding.) When I was with Arbitron, we were seriously trying to enter the Internet streaming measuring business, but never seemed to get traction. We were still diary-based, of course, but looked at accessing server logs and all that kind of stuff. But that still left much to know about who was clicking on those links and listening to all that audio and watching all that video. You know, little stuff like age, sex, race, household income, home zip code, etc. Work in progress, and it will be for some time, even as billions of dollars chase those ears and eyeballs.

And finally, an email landed in the inbox this week that reached me on two different levels. First, it was a notice about the upcoming and massive (though not quite as massive, maybe, as in the past) show in Las Vegas in April, and a request that I pass along an invite to my blog readers, including a code to get free admission to the exhibit floor. Cool! But I also was interested in how Jason Rouse and Tuvel Communications, who are working with NAB to market the show, are using this simple means to contact bloggers and get the word out. Ads in the broadcast trades? Direct mail? Exhibitors giving out passes? All still viable. But why not get guys like me to also help push attendance? Well, for all half dozen of my regular readers, here, in its entirety, is Jason's suggested blog post:

There have been some rapid changes over the last few years that we as a digital broadcasting community face. The 2010 NAB Show is the place to discover new opportunities for all of us in the broadcaster world.

The NAB Show is coming up faster than you think – April 10-15 in Las Vegas! For a taste of what the 2010 NAB Show has to offer, check out what the Broadcast Management Conference and discover how to further monetize and manage your digital products in today’s dynamic marketplace: http://ow.ly/15xv1

Oh, and just because you are reading my blog, I’m giving out a code for FREE ACCESS to the Exhibit Hall at the show. This free Exhibits-Only pass includes (but is not limited to):

- Access to the Opening Keynote and State of the Industry Address
- Info Sessions
- Content Theater and Destination Broadband Theater

Visit http://ow.ly/13T8Q today to redeem or register at http://nabshow.com/register with the code A913 (and feel free to pass this along).

Don't forget to check out the official show website at http://www.nabshow.com for more information, news, and to register!

And yes, I DO get a listing for my blog in return! Now I just wish I could go. For a gear goober like me, there is nothing else like it...miles and miles of electronic stuff! And a great ham radio get-together with lots of door prizes, too.

Whew! Glad I got all that in. Now I'm going to go lie down for a while.

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith (friend requests welcomed)

Blowing my own horn

Excuse me a bit of crass self-promotion. eHam.net, an amateur radio web site, has run a press release about my forthcoming book, WAR BENEATH THE WAVES. You can read it by clicking H E R E. Or go to my web site to see more about this book.

I also just recorded a two-part interview for The Rain Report, an audio news service aimed at amateur radio enthusiasts. It should be available next week. You can visit the web site and--when available--download the programs by clicking H E R E.

Hap Holly KC9RP, who hosts the program and conducted the interview with me, is an interesting individual. Blind since the age of 7, he has coped well and been very successful in life. He is the son of blind parents whose marriage was the subject of a best-selling book and made-for-TV movie. To see more on this very interesting man, click H E R E.

So that's it. No controversy. No rants. No raves. But I have some interesting info on the sorry state of measuring Internet audiences that I'm digesting. (Thanks to my friend John Krupsky WA5MLF for forwarding me the podcast that started me on this path.)

Besides, sunspots are returning, 12 and 15 meters are open to exotic spots all over the world, and I'd rather concentrate on that for a while rather than get my blood pressure up over such trivialities!

Don Keith

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith

Just how super was the Super Bowl?

It is, after all, the media event of the year, but I was totally unaware that, despite all the annual hype, the Super Bowl had never been the record holder in TV viewership. Until this year, that is. The final episode of MASH has held that lofty perch for decades, but this year, thanks to a bunch of factors, the Saints and the Colts tackled more viewers than any other TV show in history.

Of course, there were some compelling story lines--what the team means to Katrina-wracked New Orleans, the Mannings and their split loyalties, just a couple of very good football teams who got to the game by playing well--but it is interesting to note some of the reasons Nielsen, the company that measures TV viewership, gave for the big score this year.

• The proliferation of HD television sets has led to a renewed interest in sports, and especially the NFL, which has had a good ratings year. Makes sense. I'll accept that.


• The economy. Good, cheap entertainment. OK. I guess that makes sense. Guacamole is still relatively cheap.


• The weather, and especially the big snowstorm in the northeast. Huh? Well, Nielsen says more people stayed home to watch the game instead of going out into the elements to gather at parties, bars. and sports restaurants, thus allowing them to capture that viewing on their set-top boxes. That is a big admission of a major flaw in how TV audiences are measured. It is the equivalent of Sean Payton admitting his team had no hope of blocking Dwight Freeney.

See, if you watch TV in a sports bar, at a friend's house, in a hotel room, or in the backseat of your mini-van, that viewing is not necessarily captured by the ratings company. If you are a Nielsen family and have a set-top box on all your TVs, but you watched Drew Brees throw those pinpoint passes over at a buddy's house, you did not get counted in those 106 million households. Oh, if you are in one of those many markets where Nielsen uses the diary method, you may have been honest enough to make the proper entry in your diary while gnoshing on nachos, but that did not get counted in the overnight numbers that are being bandied about. In fact, that data won't be available for a while yet.

There are better ways. Arbitron has one. If you were a PPM panel member and watched the game at Smokey Joe's while scarfing up wings and beers, your viewing could have been recorded so long as the sound on the TV was up. But Arbitron lacks the wherewithal to go after the TV ratings business.

Truth is, it's no big deal to CBS, who carried the Super Bowl. 100 million? 106 million? No big deal. But why should it matter to you? When you consider the same antiquated technology makes the difference between a good show surviving to grow or being tossed on the trash heap, the measurement makes a big difference. Or if you are an advertiser deciding how to place your media dollars to grow your business and hire more folks, it is crucial that you get accurate and timely data, or you make mistakes that could be fatal.

Bottom line is billions are being spent--including $5 million per minute on Super Bowl ads--on TV advertising using numbers generated by 1950s technology. Heck, the Super Bowl has been around since 1966! That's XLIV years.

Not so super when we don't know how to keep score, huh?

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith

Technological change frustrations

Somewhere way back up the way, I talked about how rapidly technological change was occurring in the medical field. No doubt about it. We have made amazing strides in so many areas, and in many cases, we have prolonged life to the point that we are encountering some totally new threats--Alzheimer's comes to mind--that our parents and grandparents didn't live long enough to experience.

Well, I have had occasion over the last few weeks to experience some health issues of my own and, despite some good doctors and some really amazing technology, I have encountered some frustrations with the pace of where we are.

First, I have been declared officially to be a type II diabetic. No surprise there, considering my diet, weight and lifestyle. But I have been truly amazed how many others have the same malady. It is not valid research, I know, but in my own experience, based on how many folks say, "Oh, me too!" when I tell them, diabetes is epidemic. And especially if you consider those who don't even know they have it.

As mentioned above, part of the deal is that, since we are living to be older, and since our pancreases tend to go to sleep as we age, it will only be more prevalent. The modern diet almost assures it. Yet I am shocked at how little research is available for a cure. Oh, you can be sure that there is an amazing array of drugs available to treat the symptoms. Thank goodness for that, at least, since this disease can have devastating effects on the body. But where is the cure?

And diet is a not only a major force in prevention, it is by far the most effective treatment against symptoms. Yet dietary information is archaic. Count carbs. Take your pills and count carbs and prick your finger often to see what your blood sugar is. That's the gist of the info I got from "diabetes school" recently, and the mantra from the American Diabetes Association.

Not to get too technical, but the fact is that carbs are not necessarily carbs. Different foods are treated very differently by our bodies, and that especially applies to carbohydrates. A strawberry may have the same carbs as a slice of white bread, but they behave much differently as they affect your blood sugar. This is because of the variations of the glycemic index of various foods...how quickly your body converts food to sugar in your blood.

Yet accurate tables of the glycemic index (and its sister, glycemic loading) of various foods are very limited and have a pronounced Australian accent. See, the only real research on this subject has come from Australia, and relies on very limited studies that are now almost a decade old. And because of the nature of the study, they were done on a relatively few people. See, they had to feed healthy people various foods and then measure the result several hours later by drawing blood and checking their blood sugar.

Where is all this amazing research and technology on this very basic subject? And about something that affects millions around the world?

One other thing: my symptoms also necessitated a look at the old ticker, including a stress test and an echocardiogram. The echo deal is a wonderful bit of technology but is many years old now. You have to wonder when they'll be able to do it in 3D. The stress test has come a long way, thanks to nuclear imaging, but is still really primitive.

Well, the stress test was inconclusive and the cardiologist recommended we take a closer look. There are two ways. One is the long-standing arteriogram, in which he sticks a wire into the femoral artery in your crotch and runs it up into the heart and releases dye to see if there are blockages. It is invasive and has its risks, but if he finds something, he can often fix it with a stent or balloon while he is in there. It's also expensive.

There is another deal, though. It is called a cardiac CT scan, is not invasive at all, shows everything the other test does, and is about a fourth the cost. Trouble is, Blue Cross will pay for the arteriorgram but not the CT scan. Has nothing to do with technology, but guess which procedure we did.

Feel my pain?

(The arteriogram showed only one minor narrowing in one artery, which is being treated with medicine. Not bad for a long-time fat boy who loves Southern cooking. And armed with what little glycemic knowledge I can garner, and with a fistful of pills twice a day, I've got the blood sugar close to being in control. And I've lost 35 pounds. I'm convinced losing 50 more will solve all these problems!)

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

http://www.n4kc.blogspot.com/

Succinct but so powerfully true

I know my "technological change" blog has veered lately to diatribes on the current state of broadcast radio. But I'm not going to apologize for that. The medium touches almost all of us. It is a powerful way to reach and affect folks. And it was how I made my living for 34 years...and still do peripherally. So humor me.





Now comes a truly succinct but powerfully true sentence from media consultant--one of the few who actually "gets it" when it comes to how technology affects traditional broadcast radio--Mark Ramsey. On a recent blog post he concluded with this statement about radio:





It's everything except our music that will make us the most popular place to hear music in the future.





You don't have to be a media consultant, a former disk jockey/programmer, or media blogger to appreciate the fact that when people can program their own music in any mix or order they want, a radio station that tries to please a large number of them will ultimately fail. When people can tailor that music mix and get it on their car radio, smart phone, computer or any number of other sources (heck, I get 40 channels of music on my DirecTV!), then those stations broadcasting from a tower on a hill will get lost in the fog of available songs.





Only people who are too lazy to do more than switch on the radio, or who just don't really care and will put up with just about anything, or who accidentally fall into the small number who really like the radio station's music mix will be long-term listeners.

(Insider note: stations may not care. They still live on SHARE. Shares of audiences are still high, since it is based on the number of people listening to radio at a given time. A station can have a 25 share...25% of people who are listening to their radios...but when you look at their RATING...percentage of the total population...it may be less than 1%. At one time it would have been much higher. SHARE is the percentage of the listening pie. That pie is getting smaller and smaller.)

But it takes creative people to concoct the "glue" between the songs. The "glue" that holds listeners and causes them to prefer the station's stream of songs to their own self-created stream. Creative people cost money and a benefits package. And the really good ones want some control . Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes it takes them awhile to get the recipe right. And if they are good, someone will try to hire them away. All that's trouble. They are a risk. Risk is avoided at all costs by today's broadcast owner/operators. It must be avoided!





Somehow, they don't realize that the biggest risk of all is being too safe.





Don Keith N4KC


http://www.donkeith.com/


www.facebook.com/donkeith

Your cell phone may be good for you!

It's true! Your cell phone may actually help prevent alzheimer's disease. Talk away, confident in the fact that RECENT RESEARCH (on mice) shows the radio frequency emissions from the typical mobile phone may actually help people with the malady and similar others.

Next they are going to find that the RF from my ham radio station is keeping me from catching the common cold. And all those years I sat fifty feet away from a 50KW AM radio station has increased my intelligence and prevented the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Bottom line--and all kidding aside--is we learn more and more everyday, and the real point is that knowledge builds on knowledge. Recent breakthroughs in using RF to kill cancer cells (mentioned way back up the archive...with development by a ham radio guy) is a good example. I still believe the good news is that we will conquer many known killers and debilitators in the next decade, greatly prolonging life for people in most parts of the world (it will take longer where people still rely on witch doctors and ju ju).

The depressing news is there will always be new threats coming along to challenge those who strive for the end to unnecessary death.

Remember that scene from Star Trek when surgeons were about to cut into the brain of an injured crewmember and the ship's doctor was appalled at such "barbarism?" He pulled a little device from his pocket, passed it over the man's head, and healed him in a few minutes.

I have a scar from my ribcage halfway around my right side from a cholecestomy (gall bladder surgery) in 1974. A nurse saw it this week when I was in for some tests and couldn't believe it. That surgery now--and for the last dozen or so years--leaves a few tiny pips. The nurse had never seen such "barbarism!"

Well, I digress. I've been forgetting a lot of things lately so I need to go call up somebody and talk to them on my cell phone...if I can remember where I put the dang thing!

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith (friend requests welcomed)

Thanks for the bulletin, Nielsen!

If the TV audience ratings company Nielsen produced viewer data with the speed and forethought they did media analysis, "Laugh In" would still be number one. Here's a bit of a release just out from the Nostradamuses at Nielsen:

"Last year’s downturn caused not only changes in how broadcasters operate, but also marketers. In a new report, Nielsen outlines five advertising trends that will shape continued evolution of the ad business next year. Media convergence tops the list, with a focus on improving return on investment. “The ability to accurately measure activity and link online ads to offline purchasing behavior will be critical,” says the report. Smart phones will be a growing issue, but Nielsen believes accurate measurement will be needed to track the snowballing growth of the mobile media platform. In addition, look for advertisers to continue to build cross-media campaigns. There's also a growing mainstream acceptance of social networking."

So, they have discovered convergence! And recognized the existence of SmartPhones. Linking online ads to offline purchases? And they predict that people will be more accepting of social networking? Oh, and if Nielsen believes that we need better measurement of "the mobile media platform" then where is the world's number one provider of media research's plan to do just that? (What would you expect from a company that still measures most TV markets with diaries, and uses diaries with little stickers for station call letters for radio...and measures almost all their radio markets ONCE PER YEAR?)

Stop the presses!

Would somebody call up Nielsen and let them know Dinah Shore is no longer on the air each week, and if you see "The Beverly Hillbillies," you are probably not watching over-the-air TV?

Don Keith

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith