BBC unilaterally decided to pull out of broadcast station deal: Foreign Ministry

[FitnessHealthTravel]

When they saw the Invoice they decided to go next door. Watch this space.

[evadgib]

I saw something from the beeb a few days ago re discontinuing half a dozen services inc some in Asia but didn't link it to JH/Thailand at the time. China and Myanmar were mentioned too but IIRC they're still covered by transmitters elsewhere.

 

HTH

[sanukjim]

15 hours ago, Eligius said:

Thai Authorities speaking on behalf of others yet again,  no doubt. They love putting words onto the lips of other people.

 

Everything in Thailand is perfect - it's always the other people who are to blame!

Check it out on the BBC news.The BBC is "Cash Strapped" to quote the news and did not want to continue the costly broadcast.

[Morakot]

13 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

I'm sure the BBC sat down and said, "Yank (pun intended) that transmitter out of Thailand because of Mr. Head

 

Kind of... It was either we fund this marginal services like shortwave radio for seven more years before it's totally obsolete, or we "develop" complex case law in Thailand about the limits of press freedom and take J. Head's case all the way up to the supreme court for the next seven years.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Morakot

[johng]

10 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

Shortwave has just about had its day, quality is so bad even worse than medium wave, FM is the quality of the day with digital a bit of hit and miss so BBC well done stop wasting tax payers money please. Digital even here is rubbish,

from the wiki

 

Shortwave does possess a number of advantages over newer technologies, including the following:

• Difficulty of censoring programming by authorities in restrictive countries: unlike their relative ease in monitoring the Internet, government authorities face technical difficulties monitoring which stations (sites) are being listened to (accessed). For example, during the Russian coup against President Mikhail Gorbachev, when his access to communications was limited, Gorbachev was able to stay informed by means of the BBC World Service on shortwave.^[25]
• Low-cost shortwave radios are widely available in all but the most repressive countries in the world. Simple shortwave regenerative receivers can be easily built with a few parts.
• In many countries (particularly in most developing nations and in the Eastern bloc during the Cold War era) ownership of shortwave receivers has been and continues to be widespread^[26] (in many of these countries some domestic stations also used shortwave).
• Many newer shortwave receivers are portable and can be battery-operated, making them useful in difficult circumstances. Newer technology includes hand-cranked radios which provide power without batteries.
• Shortwave radios can be used in situations where Internet or satellite communications service is temporarily or long-term unavailable (or unaffordable).
• Shortwave radio travels much farther than broadcast FM (88-108 MHz). Shortwave broadcasts can be easily transmitted over a distance of several thousands of kilometers, including from one continent to another.
• Particularly in tropical regions, SW is somewhat less prone to interference from thunderstorms than medium wave radio, and is able to cover a large geographic area with relatively low power (and hence cost). Therefore, in many of these countries it is widely used for domestic broadcasting.
• Very little infrastructure is required for long-distance two-way communications using shortwave radio. All one needs is a pair of transceivers, each with an antenna, and a source of energy (such as a battery, a portable generator, or the electrical grid). This makes shortwave radio one of the most robust means of communications, which can be disrupted only by interference or bad ionospheric conditions. Modern digital transmission modes such as MFSK and Olivia are even more robust, allowing successful reception of signals well below the noise floor of a conventional receiver.

[darksidedog]

I have just had the most entertaining thought about this matter.

I start to suspect that the BBC, have to date, held back slightly from overly harsh criticism of Thai proceedings, possibly due to their presence here for transmitting.

Now though, the gloves are off. The Beeb, once in its new location, can say what it really thinks of proceedings in this unreality bubble.

"We regret that we have not been able to reach an agreement with the Thai government which would allow us to continue using this facility to bring accurate and impartial news to audiences in the region," the BBC said

Edited March 10, 2017 by darksidedog