Car PC's and internet radio?

Ned - I'm in the process of doing that very thing.  You can
see my site 
at: www.dashpc.com (it's already been on slashdot.org 3
times).

The pictures on the site aren't the most current, however. 
I'm 
currently trying to add wVoIP in the car by tying it into my
home 
Asterisk server.  The goal is to VPN into the home network
and get a 
phone extension while I'm in the car.  I know I _could_ use
cellular for 
voice, but encapsulating voice over data is more fun and
geekier!

Kind regards,
Chris Bergeron



Ned Williams wrote:
> I was just curious if anyone out in ALE land has not
only added a 
> linux box of their choice of flavor to their car..but
if they also 
> given it enough mobile bandwidth so sustain an internet
radio feed. I 
> have done this with my treo ptunes and an mp3 2.5mm
connector to my 
> head unit but I am wondering about a slightly more
permanent solution 
> based off linux. And of course there is the fact that
the treo + EDGE 
> can only do 96 KPS streams reliably. Any EVDO, G3 or
WiMax cars out 
> there?  Who needs HD radio and its commercials or Sat
radio and its 
> rediculour rates if you have the net at your
disposal....
>
>
> Ned
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Aleale.org
> http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 17:28 -0400, Ned Williams wrote:
> Sat radio and its rediculour rates if you have the net
at your
> disposal.... 

I guess I'm hanging around with some really cheap people on
this list.
Or I may be too rich.  I do not think that $10+/mon for SAT
radio is a
bad deal.  IMO it is a great deal.  I get to listen to what
I want.  I
do not hear commercials.  when I do hear commercials (talk
channels) it
is not some obnoxious car sales ad screaming out the
speaker.  When I
travel the country I do not have to tune my radio every 100
miles.  The
sound quality is decent compared to FM.

I've had SAT radio since 2003 and will _NOT_ go back to FM. 
Even if I
had to pay $20/mon for my radio.  

As an early adopter I paid almost $400 for my unit.  Last
year I pay $30
for my new unit.  What a steal!



_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

> I was just curious if anyone out in ALE land has not
only added a linux box
> of their choice of flavor to their car..but if they
also given it enough
> mobile bandwidth so sustain an internet radio feed. I
have done this with my

While I have an EVDO Verizon connection in my truck/car via
a WinMobile
powered Motorola Q.. ( a love/hate thing ).. great for
emergency 'net access.

[opinion style="flame-suit:on;"]
That is just an inane waste of expensive bursty poorly
connected bandwidth. 
[/opinion]

Save a few hours of your fav net radio "channels"
to HD
and play them back via CD or Line-In or MP3-Player. 
It's not like they are really live anyway... (most of them
are not.. at least, not the bad techno/trance/ambient 
channels I listen too). 

XMMS does a great job of saving streams.. 





_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

OK, this leads me to ask something I've been wondering
about.

I don't know how many channels one can select from with
XM/Sirius
(hereafter, simply XM), but I understand that it's A Lot
(i.e., more
than 100).  My question is, does the XM receiver actually
receive all of
the data stream from all of the channels at once and select
from among
them (which is what in effect occurs with terrestrial
radio), or is
something transmitted from the receiver upstream when the XM
radio is
turned on or when a channel is selected?

If the latter is in fact the case, I find the notion
chilling due to the
social engineering implications of a mass medium in which
the medium
knows exactly what each and every recipient is receiving,
present and
past. 

It is my understanding that each XM receiver must have an
associated
subscription, and I surmise that each subscription has an
associated
receiver owner identification.  If "the system" is
told by each receiver
what channel to receive, then every subscriber would have
an
ever-lengthening dataset showing what program, song,
announcement - any
program material at all - was output by the receiver(s)
covered by their
subscription. 

I can already imagine people who haven't sufficiently
assembled two and
two saying, "I don't care if 'they' [single quotes
mine] know what I'm
listening to."

Indeed?

Let me run some scenarios by you, just based on the premise
that "they"
have a dataset of your XM radio channel selections and yours
alone.

    * Your employer pays the XM provider to obtain a list of
channels
      you listen to and when you listen to them.  This
information is
      used against you at performance review time to suggest
that you're
      listening to the radio when you should be working. 
    * You have a car accident involving another party and
you are either
      sued by or suing the other party.  The other party's
attorneys
      purchase your XM radio data and testify in court that
you changed
      channels on your radio five times in the thirty
seconds before the
      accident, implying to the jury that you were
excessively
      distracted while driving. 
    * A highly liberal employer in an "At-Will"
state decides you listen
      to a little too much Sean Hannity for their taste. 
Your "position
      is eliminated."

Include the notion of *everyone's* channel data being
recorded for all
time and you can begin to see the amount of power that an XM
provider
can potentially wield - the closest thing you can reasonably
imagine to
a remotely-controlled populace existing in the world of
today. 

It occurs to me that even if XM radio is strictly one-way,
the nature of
the system is such that the provider can make program
material
selectable on a per-radio basis. 

Let me give a simplified illustration.  Suppose that when
you apply for
a subscription, you're asked to supply your eye color -
green, brown, or
blue - and you do so truthfully.  Then, every day at exactly
noon, all
of the channels sends out three voice announcements at the
same time. 
Based on the subscription data and the associated receiver
identification, all of the green-eyed subscribers hear the
noon
announcement say "Your eyes are green" - and
likewise for all of the
blue-eyed and brown-eyed subscribers.  All of the
subscribers note the
seeming omniscience of the XM system, but they know that
"seeming" is
all it is because they realize that they were asked their
eye color when
they signed up for XM service. 

But, in my simplified example, the per-subscriber selection
is done
using information that the subscriber knowingly supplied. 
If the XM
provider has taken your knowingly-supplied data and
cross-referenced it
to other data that they obtain on you, the XM provider can
mess with you
in all kinds of ways.  Remember Amazon's
"recommendations?"  If the XM
provider knows about music purchases you've made through any
number of
outlets, a music channel can select songs for you that the
system thinks
you'll like, in hopes that you'll go buy them (isn't it
convenient that
the song and artist is displayed for you on the receiver's
panel?).  You
will have been, in effect, turned into a node in a buying
cluster.

If the system *does* know your channel selections for all
time, then the
data mining that becomes possible and the actions that can
be taken as a
result of that mining take on a bizarre dimension.  People
hearing
primarily news stories that either please or disquiet them,
as a
function of whether or not the XM provider wants their
subscribers to
feel pleased or disquieted at any given moment.  Different
people
hearing different versions of the same politician's speech,
even if the
difference is only one of inflection or tenor. 

C. 2001 and the advent of digital cable, I realized that
two-way
communication between the cable box and the cable provider
was a
near-certainty (in fact, a decade earlier, I remembered Cox
Cable and
their set-top boxes that "phoned home" over POTS
to transmit
God-knows-what back to the "mothership").  I
predicted that that
capability would be used to select content on a
per-subscriber basis,
and articles I read in subsequent years bore my prediction
out. 

Ever since the dawn of mass media, there has been this
societal
understanding that a given "media unit" - a
commercial, a newspaper, a
magazine, a radio program, a magazine, etc. - was the same
for all who
received it.  Our modern culture has banked on that
understanding - that
if you went up to me and said, "Hey, did you see
Letterman last night?"
and I answered in the affirmative, then it is implicit that
you and I
both saw the same Letterman.  That concept is beginning to
break down,
if only because there is such an incredible barrage of
material
available on television 24/7 that the chances that you and I
saw the
same show on any given night are progressively diminishing. 
But the
fact of the matter is that bandwidth and storage growth,
rising as they
are on near-exponential rails, is making possible a
non-commonality of
experience and knowledge that one would normally associate
with
pre-civilization humanity. 

Crystal-clear CD-quality sound?  No commercials?  All the
Yiddish polka
I could ever want?  Gotta love that!


Christopher Fowler wrote:
> I guess I'm hanging around with some really cheap
people on this list.
> Or I may be too rich.  I do not think that $10+/mon for
SAT radio is a
> bad deal.  IMO it is a great deal.  I get to listen to
what I want.  I
> do not hear commercials.  when I do hear commercials
(talk channels) it
> is not some obnoxious car sales ad screaming out the
speaker.  When I
> travel the country I do not have to tune my radio every
100 miles.  The
> sound quality is decent compared to FM.

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:47 -0400, Ned Williams wrote:
>         Save a few hours of your fav net radio
"channels" to HD
>         and play them back via CD or Line-In or
MP3-Player.
>         It's not like they are really live anyway...
(most of them
>         are not.. at least, not the bad
techno/trance/ambient 
>         channels I listen too).

That would work too.  When I travel I do not take my Roady
2.  I have
configured my laptop in the past to record streams and
convert them the
MP3.

I have not found a program smart enough to understand spaces
between
songs or talk.  What I did was write a perl program that
would run
record for 1 hour.  It then issued the key sequences to
quit.
Immediately he would start record up again.  When he
finished N hours he
would convert to mp3 and delete source files.

I've never had much luck editing very large audio files.  I
could have
edited a large file, found the break, and cut the file.  The
problem
I've ran into with editing large files is that it always
took too much
memory.  Eventually the box would be thrashing to disk and
the system
became too slow to be usable.

I primarily recorded XM 150 (uncut comedy).  The breaks was
not much of
a problem.


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Your mind is devious and your thoughts are rather
frightening.

So if Google buys satellite radio and the infamous web-site
tracking
company DoubleClick and strikes a deal with Facebook and
MySpace...

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 01:31 -0400, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> OK, this leads me to ask something I've been wondering
about.
> 
> I don't know how many channels one can select from with
XM/Sirius
> (hereafter, simply XM), but I understand that it's A
Lot (i.e., more
> than 100).  My question is, does the XM receiver
actually receive all of
> the data stream from all of the channels at once and
select from among
> them (which is what in effect occurs with terrestrial
radio), or is
> something transmitted from the receiver upstream when
the XM radio is
> turned on or when a channel is selected?
> 
> If the latter is in fact the case, I find the notion
chilling due to the
> social engineering implications of a mass medium in
which the medium
> knows exactly what each and every recipient is
receiving, present and
> past. 
> 
> It is my understanding that each XM receiver must have
an associated
> subscription, and I surmise that each subscription has
an associated
> receiver owner identification.  If "the
system" is told by each receiver
> what channel to receive, then every subscriber would
have an
> ever-lengthening dataset showing what program, song,
announcement - any
> program material at all - was output by the receiver(s)
covered by their
> subscription. 
> 
> I can already imagine people who haven't sufficiently
assembled two and
> two saying, "I don't care if 'they' [single quotes
mine] know what I'm
> listening to."
> 
> Indeed?
> 
> Let me run some scenarios by you, just based on the
premise that "they"
> have a dataset of your XM radio channel selections and
yours alone.
> 
>     * Your employer pays the XM provider to obtain a
list of channels
>       you listen to and when you listen to them.  This
information is
>       used against you at performance review time to
suggest that you're
>       listening to the radio when you should be
working. 
>     * You have a car accident involving another party
and you are either
>       sued by or suing the other party.  The other
party's attorneys
>       purchase your XM radio data and testify in court
that you changed
>       channels on your radio five times in the thirty
seconds before the
>       accident, implying to the jury that you were
excessively
>       distracted while driving. 
>     * A highly liberal employer in an
"At-Will" state decides you listen
>       to a little too much Sean Hannity for their
taste.  Your "position
>       is eliminated."
> 
> Include the notion of *everyone's* channel data being
recorded for all
> time and you can begin to see the amount of power that
an XM provider
> can potentially wield - the closest thing you can
reasonably imagine to
> a remotely-controlled populace existing in the world of
today. 
> 
> It occurs to me that even if XM radio is strictly
one-way, the nature of
> the system is such that the provider can make program
material
> selectable on a per-radio basis. 
> 
> Let me give a simplified illustration.  Suppose that
when you apply for
> a subscription, you're asked to supply your eye color -
green, brown, or
> blue - and you do so truthfully.  Then, every day at
exactly noon, all
> of the channels sends out three voice announcements at
the same time. 
> Based on the subscription data and the associated
receiver
> identification, all of the green-eyed subscribers hear
the noon
> announcement say "Your eyes are green" - and
likewise for all of the
> blue-eyed and brown-eyed subscribers.  All of the
subscribers note the
> seeming omniscience of the XM system, but they know
that "seeming" is
> all it is because they realize that they were asked
their eye color when
> they signed up for XM service. 
> 
> But, in my simplified example, the per-subscriber
selection is done
> using information that the subscriber knowingly
supplied.  If the XM
> provider has taken your knowingly-supplied data and
cross-referenced it
> to other data that they obtain on you, the XM provider
can mess with you
> in all kinds of ways.  Remember Amazon's
"recommendations?"  If the XM
> provider knows about music purchases you've made
through any number of
> outlets, a music channel can select songs for you that
the system thinks
> you'll like, in hopes that you'll go buy them (isn't it
convenient that
> the song and artist is displayed for you on the
receiver's panel?).  You
> will have been, in effect, turned into a node in a
buying cluster.
> 
> If the system *does* know your channel selections for
all time, then the
> data mining that becomes possible and the actions that
can be taken as a
> result of that mining take on a bizarre dimension. 
People hearing
> primarily news stories that either please or disquiet
them, as a
> function of whether or not the XM provider wants their
subscribers to
> feel pleased or disquieted at any given moment. 
Different people
> hearing different versions of the same politician's
speech, even if the
> difference is only one of inflection or tenor. 
> 
> C. 2001 and the advent of digital cable, I realized
that two-way
> communication between the cable box and the cable
provider was a
> near-certainty (in fact, a decade earlier, I remembered
Cox Cable and
> their set-top boxes that "phoned home" over
POTS to transmit
> God-knows-what back to the "mothership").  I
predicted that that
> capability would be used to select content on a
per-subscriber basis,
> and articles I read in subsequent years bore my
prediction out. 
> 
> Ever since the dawn of mass media, there has been this
societal
> understanding that a given "media unit" - a
commercial, a newspaper, a
> magazine, a radio program, a magazine, etc. - was the
same for all who
> received it.  Our modern culture has banked on that
understanding - that
> if you went up to me and said, "Hey, did you see
Letterman last night?"
> and I answered in the affirmative, then it is implicit
that you and I
> both saw the same Letterman.  That concept is beginning
to break down,
> if only because there is such an incredible barrage of
material
> available on television 24/7 that the chances that you
and I saw the
> same show on any given night are progressively
diminishing.  But the
> fact of the matter is that bandwidth and storage
growth, rising as they
> are on near-exponential rails, is making possible a
non-commonality of
> experience and knowledge that one would normally
associate with
> pre-civilization humanity. 
> 
> Crystal-clear CD-quality sound?  No commercials?  All
the Yiddish polka
> I could ever want?  Gotta love that!
> 
> 
> Christopher Fowler wrote:
> > I guess I'm hanging around with some really cheap
people on this list.
> > Or I may be too rich.  I do not think that
$10+/mon for SAT radio is a
> > bad deal.  IMO it is a great deal.  I get to
listen to what I want.  I
> > do not hear commercials.  when I do hear
commercials (talk channels) it
> > is not some obnoxious car sales ad screaming out
the speaker.  When I
> > travel the country I do not have to tune my radio
every 100 miles.  The
> > sound quality is decent compared to FM.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Aleale.org
> http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
-- 
James P. Kinney III          
CEO & Director of Engineering 
Local Net Solutions,LLC        
770-493-8244                    
http://www.localnets
olutions.com

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
<jkinneylocalnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C
6CA7

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On 4/17/07, Jeff Hubbs <hbbscomcast.net> wrote:
> OK, this leads me to ask something I've been wondering
about.
>
> I don't know how many channels one can select from with
XM/Sirius
> (hereafter, simply XM), but I understand that it's A
Lot (i.e., more
> than 100).  My question is, does the XM receiver
actually receive all of
> the data stream from all of the channels at once and
select from among
> them (which is what in effect occurs with terrestrial
radio), or is
> something transmitted from the receiver upstream when
the XM radio is
> turned on or when a channel is selected?
>
> If the latter is in fact the case, I find the notion
chilling due to the
> social engineering implications of a mass medium in
which the medium
> knows exactly what each and every recipient is
receiving, present and
> past.


Do you have cable TV?  They already do some of this, and
plan to do
more; all supposedly "anonymized", but there are
plans to deliver
"targetted" ad streams to households, based on
neighborhood
demographics.  Tivo already "recommends" stuff to
you, so they are
even able to derive your interests (somewhat - google
"My Tivo think's
I'm gay!")


-- 
Pete Hardie
--------
Better Living Through Bitmaps
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Relax.
Satellite radio is like AM or FM or TV broadcasting - IT'S
ONE->  
WAY.  The broadcaster cannot know which programs or channels
you  
listen to.  A single datastream from the satellite is
received by all  
the radios.  Nothing is transmitted back.  The radios are
"receive- 
only".

This is much more efficient than any sort of cell phone
radio  
"broadcasting" with a 2 way datastream for each
and every subscriber  
- what a massive waste of bandwidth!  Satellite radios
bandwidth  
requirement is constant regardless of the subscriber count.

On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:27 PM, James P. Kinney III wrote:

> Your mind is devious and your thoughts are rather
frightening.
>
> So if Google buys satellite radio and the infamous
web-site tracking
> company DoubleClick and strikes a deal with Facebook
and MySpace...
>
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 01:31 -0400, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>> OK, this leads me to ask something I've been
wondering about.
>>
>> I don't know how many channels one can select from
with XM/Sirius
>> (hereafter, simply XM), but I understand that it's
A Lot (i.e., more
>> than 100).  My question is, does the XM receiver
actually receive  
>> all of
>> the data stream from all of the channels at once
and select from  
>> among
>> them (which is what in effect occurs with
terrestrial radio), or is
>> something transmitted from the receiver upstream
when the XM radio is
>> turned on or when a channel is selected?
>>
>> If the latter is in fact the case, I find the
notion chilling due  
>> to the
>> social engineering implications of a mass medium in
which the medium
>> knows exactly what each and every recipient is
receiving, present and
>> past.
>>
>> It is my understanding that each XM receiver must
have an associated
>> subscription, and I surmise that each subscription
has an associated
>> receiver owner identification.  If "the
system" is told by each  
>> receiver
>> what channel to receive, then every subscriber
would have an
>> ever-lengthening dataset showing what program,
song, announcement  
>> - any
>> program material at all - was output by the
receiver(s) covered by  
>> their
>> subscription.
>>
>> I can already imagine people who haven't
sufficiently assembled  
>> two and
>> two saying, "I don't care if 'they' [single
quotes mine] know what  
>> I'm
>> listening to."
>>
>> Indeed?
>>
>> Let me run some scenarios by you, just based on the
premise that  
>> "they"
>> have a dataset of your XM radio channel selections
and yours alone.
>>
>>     * Your employer pays the XM provider to obtain
a list of channels
>>       you listen to and when you listen to them. 
This information is
>>       used against you at performance review time
to suggest that  
>> you're
>>       listening to the radio when you should be
working.
>>     * You have a car accident involving another
party and you are  
>> either
>>       sued by or suing the other party.  The other
party's attorneys
>>       purchase your XM radio data and testify in
court that you  
>> changed
>>       channels on your radio five times in the
thirty seconds  
>> before the
>>       accident, implying to the jury that you were
excessively
>>       distracted while driving.
>>     * A highly liberal employer in an
"At-Will" state decides you  
>> listen
>>       to a little too much Sean Hannity for their
taste.  Your  
>> "position
>>       is eliminated."
>>
>> Include the notion of *everyone's* channel data
being recorded for  
>> all
>> time and you can begin to see the amount of power
that an XM provider
>> can potentially wield - the closest thing you can
reasonably  
>> imagine to
>> a remotely-controlled populace existing in the
world of today.
>>
>> It occurs to me that even if XM radio is strictly
one-way, the  
>> nature of
>> the system is such that the provider can make
program material
>> selectable on a per-radio basis.
>>
>> Let me give a simplified illustration.  Suppose
that when you  
>> apply for
>> a subscription, you're asked to supply your eye
color - green,  
>> brown, or
>> blue - and you do so truthfully.  Then, every day
at exactly noon,  
>> all
>> of the channels sends out three voice announcements
at the same time.
>> Based on the subscription data and the associated
receiver
>> identification, all of the green-eyed subscribers
hear the noon
>> announcement say "Your eyes are green" -
and likewise for all of the
>> blue-eyed and brown-eyed subscribers.  All of the
subscribers note  
>> the
>> seeming omniscience of the XM system, but they know
that "seeming" is
>> all it is because they realize that they were asked
their eye  
>> color when
>> they signed up for XM service.
>>
>> But, in my simplified example, the per-subscriber
selection is done
>> using information that the subscriber knowingly
supplied.  If the XM
>> provider has taken your knowingly-supplied data and
cross- 
>> referenced it
>> to other data that they obtain on you, the XM
provider can mess  
>> with you
>> in all kinds of ways.  Remember Amazon's
"recommendations?"  If  
>> the XM
>> provider knows about music purchases you've made
through any  
>> number of
>> outlets, a music channel can select songs for you
that the system  
>> thinks
>> you'll like, in hopes that you'll go buy them
(isn't it convenient  
>> that
>> the song and artist is displayed for you on the
receiver's  
>> panel?).  You
>> will have been, in effect, turned into a node in a
buying cluster.
>>
>> If the system *does* know your channel selections
for all time,  
>> then the
>> data mining that becomes possible and the actions
that can be  
>> taken as a
>> result of that mining take on a bizarre dimension. 
People hearing
>> primarily news stories that either please or
disquiet them, as a
>> function of whether or not the XM provider wants
their subscribers to
>> feel pleased or disquieted at any given moment. 
Different people
>> hearing different versions of the same politician's
speech, even  
>> if the
>> difference is only one of inflection or tenor.
>>
>> C. 2001 and the advent of digital cable, I realized
that two-way
>> communication between the cable box and the cable
provider was a
>> near-certainty (in fact, a decade earlier, I
remembered Cox Cable and
>> their set-top boxes that "phoned home"
over POTS to transmit
>> God-knows-what back to the "mothership").
 I predicted that that
>> capability would be used to select content on a
per-subscriber basis,
>> and articles I read in subsequent years bore my
prediction out.
>>
>> Ever since the dawn of mass media, there has been
this societal
>> understanding that a given "media unit" -
a commercial, a  
>> newspaper, a
>> magazine, a radio program, a magazine, etc. - was
the same for all  
>> who
>> received it.  Our modern culture has banked on that
understanding  
>> - that
>> if you went up to me and said, "Hey, did you
see Letterman last  
>> night?"
>> and I answered in the affirmative, then it is
implicit that you and I
>> both saw the same Letterman.  That concept is
beginning to break  
>> down,
>> if only because there is such an incredible barrage
of material
>> available on television 24/7 that the chances that
you and I saw the
>> same show on any given night are progressively
diminishing.  But the
>> fact of the matter is that bandwidth and storage
growth, rising as  
>> they
>> are on near-exponential rails, is making possible a
non- 
>> commonality of
>> experience and knowledge that one would normally
associate with
>> pre-civilization humanity.
>>
>> Crystal-clear CD-quality sound?  No commercials? 
All the Yiddish  
>> polka
>> I could ever want?  Gotta love that!
>>
>>
>> Christopher Fowler wrote:
>>> I guess I'm hanging around with some really
cheap people on this  
>>> list.
>>> Or I may be too rich.  I do not think that
$10+/mon for SAT radio  
>>> is a
>>> bad deal.  IMO it is a great deal.  I get to
listen to what I  
>>> want.  I
>>> do not hear commercials.  when I do hear
commercials (talk  
>>> channels) it
>>> is not some obnoxious car sales ad screaming
out the speaker.   
>>> When I
>>> travel the country I do not have to tune my
radio every 100  
>>> miles.  The
>>> sound quality is decent compared to FM.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Aleale.org
>> http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> -- 
> James P. Kinney III
> CEO & Director of Engineering
> Local Net Solutions,LLC
> 770-493-8244
> http://www.localnets
olutions.com
>
> GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> <jkinneylocalnetsolutions.com>
> Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3
829C 6CA7
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Aleale.org
> http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale