I also don’t know of any product that has been more widely rumored before its official release. Apple officially announced the iPad on January 27, 2010, but the rumors were flying months before that. Some of the rumors seemed unlikely (a three-dimensional user interface), some were bizarre (built-in solar panels), but some were fairly accurate (an accompanying ebook store).]]> Unless you have been living under a rock for the past few months then you undoubtedly have heard about the iPad, Apple’s new handheld device. Given the widespread media fascination with the iPad, I can’t think of any other way to have avoided hearing about it.

I also don’t know of any product that has been more widely rumored before its official release. Apple officially announced the iPad on January 27, 2010, but the rumors had been flying for months before that. Some of the rumors seemed unlikely (a three-dimensional user interface), some were bizarre (built-in solar panels), but some were fairly accurate (an accompanying ebook store).

I can’t help but wonder if some of those rumors came from Apple itself. Apple has always maintained a tight control of its image and managing information is an important part of that. A few pieces of carefully leaked information could help point the discussion in a new direction.

For example, one of the most widely reported rumors was that the device would cost around $1000. Many people were dismayed by this relatively high price. Of course, those same people were delighted when the real price turned out to be just $499 for the lowest configuration.

All the excessive hype may have partially backfired though, considering the number of people now predicting that the iPad will fail in the marketplace. After the iPhone was introduced, I remember listening to one “expert” explain exactly all the features it was lacking and why it would fail. His arguments made perfect sense, but all he ended up proving was how hard it is to predict the future. My bet is still on the iPad.

I’ve recently been enjoying the book The Art and Skill of Radio-Telegraphy. Written by the late William G. Pierpont N0HFF, it can also be read online here.

The book is largely about learning Morse code, with chapters such as “Practice To Gain Proficiency,” “Common Errors and What to Do About Them,” and “How Long Will It Take to Learn?” But there is also a lot of historical information about early radio and Morse code, including some great anecdotes such as this one:

In 1856 seven year-old John O’Brian delivered telegrams for his brother Richard, who at age 15 was the telegrapher for the local RR office. After two years of this John prevailed upon his brother to teach him how to operate. So, while still only nine years of age John became a good operator and was eager to have a job of his own. The RR offered him the position at a nearby town, and he snapped it up. People in those days were used to seeing young telegraphers, but not this young! Very soon, however, they became so pleased with his work that no more questions were asked.

This book looks like an excellent resource for anyone who wants to learn more about Morse code.]]> Although obtaining an amateur radio license no longer requires demonstrating a proficiency in Morse code, interest in Morse code doesn’t seem to have taken the nose dive that some had predicted. I think that many now regard Morse code as an elite skill rather than the unpleasant (but mandatory) task it used to be.

I’ve recently been enjoying the book The Art and Skill of Radio-Telegraphy. Written by the late William G. Pierpont N0HFF, it can also be read online here.

The book is largely about learning Morse code, with chapters such as “Practice To Gain Proficiency,” “Common Errors and What to Do About Them,” and “How Long Will It Take to Learn?” But there is also a lot of historical information about early radio and Morse code, including some great anecdotes such as this one:

In 1856 seven year-old John O’Brian delivered telegrams for his brother Richard, who at age 15 was the telegrapher for the local RR office. After two years of this John prevailed upon his brother to teach him how to operate. So, while still only nine years of age John became a good operator and was eager to have a job of his own. The RR offered him the position at a nearby town, and he snapped it up. People in those days were used to seeing young telegraphers, but not this young! Very soon, however, they became so pleased with his work that no more questions were asked.

This book looks like an excellent resource for anyone who wants to learn more about Morse code.

I think this is a shame because the Flight Simulator was one of the oldest personal computer programs still being actively developed. Although some sources (including Microsoft) state that the first version was for the IBM PC in 1982, the program actually dates back further than that.

The original version, known as A2-FS1, was created for the Apple II by Bruce Artwick and published by subLOGIC in 1980. A TRS-80 Model I version, known as T80-FS1, soon followed also in 1980 (this was the version I first used). subLOGIC continued to develop the Apple II version and also created new versions for the TRS-80 Color Computer, Commodore 64, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, and others up until 1988.

In 1982, Microsoft licensed from subLOGIC a version of the Flight Simulator for the IBM PC, which they renamed the Microsoft Flight Simulator. It became enormously successful, selling 21 million copies by 1999 according to the Guinness Book of World Records. By being both very popular and very demanding on the computer hardware, the Microsoft Flight Simulator became a de-facto test of IBM PC compatibility; if a computer could run Flight Simulator, then it could be considered IBM PC compatible.

Bruce Artwick left subLOGIC in 1988 but retained rights to the Flight Simulator and continued developing it for Microsoft through his own company. In 1996, Microsoft bought the Flight Simulator outright and developed the subsequent versions internally. The final version was Microsoft Flight Simulator X, released in 2006.]]> I’m pretty late in noticing this, but the Microsoft Flight Simulator is no more. Microsoft shut down ACES Studio, the internal group that developed Microsoft Flight Simulator, back in January 2009.

I think this is a shame because the Flight Simulator was one of the oldest personal computer programs still being actively developed. Although some sources (including Microsoft) state that the first version was for the IBM PC in 1982, the program actually dates back further than that.

The original version, known as A2-FS1, was created for the Apple II by Bruce Artwick and published by subLOGIC in 1980. A TRS-80 Model I version, known as T80-FS1, soon followed also in 1980 (this was the version I first used). subLOGIC continued to develop the Apple II version and also created new versions for the TRS-80 Color Computer, Commodore 64, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, and others up until 1988.

In 1982, Microsoft licensed from subLOGIC a version of the Flight Simulator for the IBM PC, which they renamed the Microsoft Flight Simulator. It became enormously successful, selling 21 million copies by 1999 according to the Guinness Book of World Records. By being both very popular and very demanding on the computer hardware, the Microsoft Flight Simulator became a de-facto test of IBM PC compatibility; if a computer could run Flight Simulator, then it could be considered IBM PC compatible.

Bruce Artwick left subLOGIC in 1988 but retained rights to the Flight Simulator and continued developing it for Microsoft through his own company. In 1996, Microsoft bought the Flight Simulator outright and developed the subsequent versions internally. The final version was Microsoft Flight Simulator X, released in 2006.

To my surprise, many people think that the story is true. Roger Ebert recently addressed it in his “Movie Answer Man” column in the Chicago Sun-Times (the December 9, 2009 and December 23, 2009 columns). Here is another discussion at the International Jack Benny Fan Club Forum. The best guess among viewers seems to be that Jack Benny is sitting at a table in the background at around the seven minute mark.]]> Did Jack Benny make an uncredited cameo in the 1942 movie Casablanca? That odd claim isn’t new: it dates back to the movie’s release and appears in the Casablanca press book. But movie studio publicity departments weren’t known for slavish adherence to the truth and often invented stories for publicity. I had always assumed this story fell into the category of urban legend.

To my surprise, many people think that the story is true. Roger Ebert recently addressed it in his “Movie Answer Man” column in the Chicago Sun-Times (the December 9, 2009 and December 23, 2009 columns). Here is another discussion at the International Jack Benny Fan Club Forum. The best guess among viewers seems to be that Jack Benny is sitting at a table in the background at around the seven minute mark.

I found some further corroboration in the Wednesday, February 3, 1943 issue of The Evening Independent, a St. Petersburg, Florida newspaper. Here is a story with the headline of “Playhouse Offers Award for Finding Benny in Picture”:

If you look sharply at the right time and the right place, you will see Jack Benny in Warner Brothers “Casablanca” now showing for the last two days (today and Thursday) at the Playhouse theater. And if you identify the comedian and the scene in which he appears the box office will present you with a free ticket to the next feature at the theater.

The novel contest offer was made today after Playhouse officials discovered the extra star in the star studded “Casablanca” which features among others, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid and Humphrey Bogart.

Benny who is not supposed to appear in the picture, went stage hopping at the Warner Brothers studio and found himself on the set of “Casablanca” while the cameras were shooting. Due to wartime shortage of film the scene was not retaken and Benny definitely appears in the picture.

The contest is also mentioned in the Playhouse advertisement on the same page under the caption “Find Jack Benny in Casablanca”:

Jack Benny is not billed and is not supposed to be in the picture BUT HE IS … Any person attending the show today and tomorrow who can identify him and describe the scene in which he appears will be given A FREE PASS to see “RHYTHM PARADE”

UPDATE:

Mark Evanier has written two articles about this issue here and here. He raises an excellent question: if Jack Benny did make a cameo in Casablanca, why did he never mention it on his radio show?

Back in November 2009, the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA (a wireless communications trade group) wrote a letter to the FCC requesting ways to “reduce the amount of spectrum assigned to broadcast television licensees.” You can see a copy of that letter here. Their key point comes at the end of the letter:

Without swift Commission action to identify and clear significant portions of electromagnetic spectrum below 3 GHz, consumers and businesses in this country will be unable to access the Internet and information sources so necessary to be competitive internationally.

The implication here seems obvious: why reserve large sections of broadcast spectrum for television when “fewer than ten percent of American households rely on over-the-air transmission to view broadcast content”?]]> Will free over-the-air broadcast television in the United States soon become a thing of the past? That prospect would have seemed impossible to me not too long ago, but I wonder if it is what the future holds.

Back in November 2009, the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA (a wireless communications trade group) wrote a letter to the FCC requesting ways to “reduce the amount of spectrum assigned to broadcast television licensees.” You can see a copy of that letter here. Their key point comes at the end of the letter:

Without swift Commission action to identify and clear significant portions of electromagnetic spectrum below 3 GHz, consumers and businesses in this country will be unable to access the Internet and information sources so necessary to be competitive internationally.

The implication here seems obvious: why reserve large sections of broadcast spectrum for television when “fewer than ten percent of American households rely on over-the-air transmission to view broadcast content”?

There is enormous pressure at the moment to free up more bandwidth for wireless communications. Many long-time users of frequencies are thought to be at risk for relocation or removal. For example, it seems likely that amateur radio will lose rights to many frequencies, especially in the microwave range. But television is an especially rich target for the wireless companies because its frequencies are adjacent to the ones they use today.

VHF channels 1 to 13 were the first reserved for television back in the 1930’s. Channel 1 (which suffered from interference problems) was removed when broadcasting began in earnest following World War II. UHF channels were added in 1952, comprising channels 14 to 83.

Channels 70 to 83, which were mostly used for repeaters, were removed in 1983. More recently, channels 52 to 69 were removed as part of the digital broadcast conversion in 2009. So the television channels available today in the United States total 49: VHF channels 2 to 13 and UHF channels 14 to 51 (excluding channel 37 which is reserved for radio astronomy).

The situation is complicated by the fact that the VHF channels are not working out well for digital television. Many of the remaining digital VHF stations have requesting relocation to UHF channels. That means that the only widely usable channels for digital television are the 37 UHF channels.

In a separate proposal, the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA have suggested replacing high-power television transmitters with networks of lower power transmitters. This approach, known as distributed transmission system or DTS, could reduce the number of channels required to cover an area. DTS isn’t a new idea and is considered one potential way to replace coverage lost in the digital television conversion. It would also have the advantage of working with existing televisions.

But their proposal estimates that between 100 to 180 MHz of bandwidth could be freed up. That would be the equivalent of 17 to 30 UHF channels. If thirty channels were removed from the UHF band (assuming that channel 37 remains unused), that would leave only seven UHF channels available for digital television. It’s hard to see how that could help but destroy over-the-air television.

A skeptical observer might wonder if the real issue is preventing competition with future wireless video services. For example, one of the uses of the recently vacated channels 52 to 69 is MediaFLO, a service created by Qualcomm. MediaFLO uses channel 55 to broadcast television to mobile devices.

I’m sure this makes sense as a business decision for Radio Netherlands, just as I’m sure it made sense for the BBC to drop shortwave broadcasts to North America. Obviously there is no station with a large enough budget to broadcast everywhere and it only makes sense to allocate limited resources to areas considered to be most important.

But it always bothers me when such a decision is presented as being best for the listeners. For instance, the Radio Netherlands site states:]]> I was saddened to learn that Radio Netherlands is ending shortwave transmissions to North America, effective October 26, 2008. Radio Netherlands was one of the first shortwave stations I ever heard and I have spent many enjoyable hours over the years listening to their programs.

I’m sure this makes sense as a business decision for Radio Netherlands, just as I’m sure it made sense for the BBC to drop shortwave broadcasts to North America. Obviously there is no station with a large enough budget to broadcast everywhere and it only makes sense to allocate limited resources to areas considered to be most important.

But it always bothers me when such a decision is presented as being best for the listeners. For instance, the Radio Netherlands site states:

Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s English broadcasts are available in North America in an increasing variety of ways. More and more partner stations are taking our programming (a growing number of NPR stations in the US and CBC in Canada) and there are now a wide range of satellite options (including Sirius satellite radio).

The programmes are also available live, on-demand and via podcast.

The number of alternatives for listeners in North America is such that we have decided to end our shortwave broadcasts to the region.

They list four different ways that people in North America can still receive Radio Netherlands:

1. on the internet at http://www.radionetherlands.nl/
2. on the AMC 4 satellite 24 hours a day
3. as part of the CBC overnight service at 1:05 AM
4. on WRN as found on the Galaxy 25 satellite or on Sirius satellite radio

Those are four legitimate options, but they don’t really compare to shortwave:

1. Listening to Radio Netherlands on the internet is an option only for those people with broadband. Broadband internet is not ubiquitous, at least in the United States. Unlike shortwave radio, listening to internet radio away from a computer is not practical for most people.
2. Listening to the AMC 4 satellite requires receiver hardware that most people don’t have, not to mention a clear view of the satellite.
3. The CBC overnight service is an option only for people who live in Canada or near the border. It is also not very convenient, being on late overnight.
4. Most people don’t have satellite receivers or satellite radios capable of receiving WRN.

Services such as Radio Netherlands and the BBC World Service are delivered for free and no one has any right to expect that they will be available indefinitely. Declining interest in shortwave means that it makes perfect sense that money previously spent on shortwave transmissions might be better spent elsewhere. But it is unrealistic to expect that cutting shortwave won’t affect many listeners.

Before the BBC ended shortwave transmissions to North America, I used to listen to the BBC World Service every day, often for several hours each day. It occurs to me that I haven’t listened to the BBC World Service a single time since then. Not because of any bad feelings on my part but because I no longer find it convenient to listen. Even long-term listening is a habit that is surprisingly easy to break.

One frequently suggested condition was a requirement that all new satellite radios be capable of receiving terrestrial HD Radio stations. The FCC didn’t make that part of the deal, although they are still requesting public comments on the idea. Now Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced the “Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act”, which would make the FCC implement that HD Radio requirement.]]> Back when there was debate about the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger, various groups suggested potential conditions that might be made part of the deal. Some were discarded but others were agreed upon. For example, both companies made an open device pledge that will allow manufacturers to add features to their receivers.

One frequently suggested condition was a requirement that all new satellite radios be capable of receiving terrestrial HD Radio stations. The FCC didn’t make that part of the deal, although they are still requesting public comments on the idea. Now Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced the “Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act,” which would make the FCC implement that HD Radio requirement.

For obvious reasons, Clear Channel Communications and others that have invested heavily in HD Radio support this bill. Somewhat less obviously, General Motors and Toyota are opposed to it. They stated in a letter to the FCC: “The proponents of the proposed condition are seeking an unprecedented requirement regulating the choice of entertainment technologies in an automotive environment.”

There is precedent for the FCC mandating hardware, such as requiring UHF receivers and closed-captioning in televisions. But I still would tend to think this requirement will be a tough sell, especially with HD Radio not taking off with consumers the way many had expected.