Bring Back Shortwave
49 comments
·March 7, 2025jen729w
In the early 2000s I was lucky enough to travel the world for work. I was a football nut and always carried a Sony radio so I could pick up the BBC World Service.
I vividly remember turning it on late in a Sunderland vs. Newcastle match. I was in central Bogota, Colombia. Struggling for reception, knowing we'd gone 1-0 down early in the match, I can still hear the commentator: "and who would have thought, after going one-nil down at St. James' Park, Sunderland would be two-one up". I shouted out loud like a lunatic. We won the game.
I've strung wire coat-hangers from windows in Nigeria, Ukraine, and Macedonia all trying to improve reception so I could listen to a football match.
There's a romance there that internet streaming will never touch.
don-code
While admittedly not at all the same, there was a certain romance shared by all listeners of a Boston-local FM radio station, WFNX. Whereas many commercial radio stations broadcast with tens of thousands of watts, FNX made do with a Class A broadcast license, limiting them to around 3000 watts of power. This made picking up the station a challenge for all but the closest listeners.
My particular romance was taking a pair of TV rabbit ears and hanging them out the window by the twin-lead cable, much to my mother's chagrin.
cbarrick
In college, I would listen to WPPP in Athens, GA (100 watts). These days I listen to WPTS in Pittsburgh, PA (16 watts).
Low power college radio is great! The broadcasts are always so varied, and there's never any commercials.
42lux
Yep, was my gateway to the world as little boy before the internet/bbs came around.
hilbert42
Those who've had experience with either transmitting or receiving on the HF band and or lower frequencies (≤30MHz) and who've knowledge of ionospheric propagation just know that short, medium and longwave RF bands are still essential in this digital/cable/satellite era for reasons that when all other communications systems have failed then communications on these frequencies will still be reliable.
Moreover, in wartime or during some other major catastrophe when technical infrastructure is likely to be impacted or destroyed then establishing and maintaining communications services on these frequencies is easy for reasons that the technology is low-tech and easy to understand—and there's an enormous amount of engineering experience to fall back upon (about 100 years' worth).
That we even have to raise this discussion is a quintessential example of intergenerational information loss.
Given their strategic importance, governments should put priority on educating the smartphone/streaming generation that these other modes of electronic communication actually exist and that they may even have to depend upon them.
I only need to refer to the current debate over retaining AM-band reception in car radios to illustrate the paucity of understanding. That EV manufacturers are pushing for the removal of the AM band in their car radios is proof-positive of how little the current breed of electronics engineers knows about these frequencies let alone their strategic importance.
baskinator
A ham technician license is pretty easy to obtain in the US, and a handheld radio can be had for cheap. HF takes a little more hardware though.
JKCalhoun
> Britain and most western countries have put all their eggs in one large basket: that of digital communications. In a time of global conflict, this could be a risky and painful prospect.
There's a scene in The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (1970) where a man (Jewish) is listening to the events of WWII play-out over shortwave. He is living at the moment in relative safety but he understands from what he hears that change is afoot in his country.
At the risk of sounding like a prepper, it was clear to me then that having a radio capable of long distance reception was a very valuable thing to have around.
II2II
There is a difference between being prepared and being a prepper. Having the means to receive outside information is being prepared. Listening to it day and night because you think your government is out to get you is being a prepper.[1]
[1] Unfortunately, many exceptions apply.
toast0
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :p
ggm
I used to get the woodpecker, and some very ominous semi-continuous monotonous hums in human hearing ranges with occasional tweedle. And the lincolnshire poacher. Or, something very like it.
This was 70s Edinburgh, with a long-line antenna strung from my window to a tree about 50m away. I tried to make a dipole out of it, not sure it really worked. The radio was WW2 bomber surplus store, about 15U high and probably some precursor to a 19" rack width. you swapped out brick sized tuning blocks to reset it's frequency bands and then used a blade-overlap condenser tuner. I also used bakelite headphones, no soft foam. Hardcore! We had a better one downstairs with a vernier which tuned more accurately, consistently and it did MW for BBC radio. When FM became more common we got a small philips and it sat next to it, doing the hard work.
Shortwave picked up a lot. I was too young to understand what QSL cards would be about otherwise I would have some.
jdietrich
The UK's last remaining shortwave transmitter site has a power output of nearly 3 megawatts across ten HF transmitters. For all the romance of shortwave, it's an incredibly inefficient way to serve an ever-shrinking listener base.
I can see the case for analog radio as an emergency communications system in regions with unreliable infrastructure. I can see the case for limited-area shortwave transmissions to serve populations with poor domestic media. I really struggle to see the case for throwing vast amounts of RF in the vague direction of the ionosphere, on the off chance that someone in the Pitcairn Islands wants to hear the cricket scores.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woofferton_transmitting_stat...
bongodongobob
It's extremely efficient and doesn't harm anything else. What would you replace it with?
jdietrich
Any or all of the technologies that people actually use. Like it or not, the number of active shortwave listeners is tiny, even in poor and remote parts of the world. Voice of America and the BBC World Service are the strongest possible case for shortwave, but even they have been scaling back their shortwave operations because most of their listeners prefer local AM/FM transmissions or streaming. Whatever the benefits of shortwave might be, they're entirely hypothetical for the vast majority who have no interest in buying a relatively esoteric receiver, stringing up a longwire and chasing a carrier across the bands.
I still occasionally operate on top band with a straight key, but even I have to accept that shortwave is now almost entirely irrelevant and rapidly headed towards extinction.
https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentar...
JKCalhoun
SDR has started me on the path of exploring the radio spectrum, I encourage anyone who is interested in radio who has not tried it to get a cheap SDR dongle and give it a spin.
_def
You can even try some websdr servers, it can be really fun, even/especially(?) if you don't really know what you are doing
y33t
I love the idea of shortwave but all I ever pick up are Jesus channels.
AnonymousPlanet
I'm in Europe, so it's mostly Chinese propaganda in various languages that you pick up on shortwave around here. There's exactly one American broadcast you can get here and that is, you guessed it, a Jesus channel.
kanbankaren
There are other broadcasts too. You just have to listen during certain periods as they mayn't be up all the time. The website above allows you to figure out what you can receive at your location.
TylerE
That website is broken. When you drag the dot it says to reload the page for the change to take effect...and then when you do the dot snaps right back to africa.
II2II
It works under Firefox. That said, I don't know how reliable the predictions are. My SWR is packed away at the moment.
null
euroderf
Having a shortwave (with a decent antenna) is fun. You twiddle the dial and find all kinds of goodies. Pretty soon you'll be scouring teh interwebz for programming schedules.
sneak
I have never been able to pick up anything on my SW radio with its integrated antenna.
What am I doing wrong?
lutusp
> I have never been able to pick up anything on my SW radio with its integrated antenna. What am I doing wrong?
If the radio and its antenna are indoors, that's the problem. As a test, take the radio outdoors to an open area. You should see a big improvement.
To make that change permanent, install an outdoor long-wire antenna that runs inside and connects to the radio. The wire can be invisibly thin and still do the job. Your neighbors don't need to know about your retro pastime.
the-grump
It helps to be high up and to have an unobstructed view.
An antenna extension (https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/sgn-ant-60) would help.
Even better would be an active antenna. I have only heard great things about the MLA30+ though I don't own one myself.
WWCR (4840) has always been the easiest broadcast for me to pick up in the US.
sidewndr46
Height isn't going to make any real difference for shortwave reception unless you're seriously high up and putting up a very efficient antenna like a dipole. At that point it's kind of moot, as you don't need an efficient antenna anyways to receive shortwave.
rpcope1
The MLA30+ is ok if you throw away the crappy bias tee power injector that comes with it and replace the coax with something a little more durable.
There's other gear like the cross country wireless loops that aren't much more expensive that perform much better, at least in my experience.
thenthenthen
Check for noise sources (tube lights, solar equipment) as well. A friend had an old thinkpad and the psu brick was so noisy, it was blanking out my radio within 6-10 meters…
lutusp
More astonishing than knowing what HF radio can do, is to notice how empty the HF bands are compared to past decades.
During my around-the-world solo sail (1988-1991) (https://arachnoid.com/sailbook/), I relied on two-way HF radio for many things no longer present, including open-water phone calls. But that absence represents a choice, not a necessity. Here's an easy receiver project: "Create Your Own Open-Source Software-Defined Radio" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNgPYVpTng).
Receiving is cheap and easy. To transmit on these bands, you must get a Ham license. But that's easier than it was -- Morse code is no longer required.
I can remember what I thought when I first heard about the Internet -- that it would make Ham radio look slow and stupid by comparison. I was never so wrong about anything in my life (not for a lack of eager candidates).
rpcope1
Honestly if we could just make the pirates around 6950 a little more tacitly legit (I mean it's clear the FCC doesn't care, but a little more wink wink nudge nudge might be cool), that would go a long way towards a shortwave revival. Some of the most fun listening is pirate broadcasts in the shortwave bands. Maybe even something like non-commercial ham-esque licenses that also allow people to play music?
null
https://archive.is/a5lqU