That may be why stations like Boom are smart to say "THIS IS CHBM FM...but you can call us BOOM!"
By making the call letters clear as day, maybe the listeners will know to say "Alexia...play CHBM!" 

Virgin radio really should stop racing through "CKFM" like an auctioneer and try the same thing. 

I don't actually own an Alexia though...so is it true that actual call letters like CHFI etc are instantly playing the correct radio station? Or are there still errors?

Radiowiz wrote:

...stations like Boom are smart to say "THIS IS CHBM FM...but you can call us BOOM!"
By making the call letters clear as day, maybe the listeners will know to say "Alexia...play CHBM!"

Virgin radio really should stop racing through "CKFM" like an auctioneer and try the same thing.

It would have been interesting to see how quickly Pat had gotten Boom or Virgin if he had used nothing but call letters, something he didn't do in either case.
The rush through "CKFM" is probably a carryover from the days when the CRTC required a full, top-hour ID, while the station felt, 'We're forced to do this once an hour, but we're "Virgin" now.'
In both instances, "99 POINT 9" and "97 POINT 3" were the charm.

I don't actually own an Alexia though...so is it true that actual call letters like CHFI etc are instantly playing the correct radio station? Or are there still errors?

Can't answer that, wiz, but it might be worth throwing in 'Toronto' to narrow the target. Alexa, at times, appears to need as much information as possible and the frequency said in a specific way.
Use of the station frequency looks like it may be as important as it was years ago on the air and in print.
 

Last edited by mike marshall (July 25, 2018 5:01 pm)

Most of these "smart" devices can be trained (or "favorited") in terms of your audio selection. For instance, you can train the device to turn on Boom 97.3 by uttering the phrase "play radio". Ditto that of any chained transaction. You can set-up a chain of turning on a bedside lamp, playing a certain station, turning off the downstairs lights and turning on the alarm with the phrase "goodnight". 

I find these devices handy when dealing with porn as the spouse comes home. Certainly, you don't want them to be aware that you're watching Eastern European adult cinema whilst engaging in self-massage, so when the smart system detects the garage door going up, the device shuts off the widescreen, turns on an electric aroma candle, turns off the vibrating bed, turns off the subtle but distinct cd of tribal pygmies banging drums while chanting volcano sacrifice incantations and flushes the toilet.

mike marshall wrote:

betaylored wrote:

I've just remembered Space, Gary Bell, and I wonder what, if any theory he would have about the oddity that is Alexa, (and Siri) and the fact that the spoken request for certain stations are understood, while others get "lost".😎

betaylored, I'm wondering if your whole post is tongue-in-cheek, because your use of the word "oddity" strikes me as rather dismissive. It appears that every house will have at least one of these smart speakers in the near future.
We don't have one, simply because we have no need. I find Pat Holiday's article fascinating (look forward to Part II) but at my age, it's important that I get off my ass as often as possible, rather that shouting orders (politely). ;-)
 

 
Nope, not tongue-in-cheek, just feverish from the heat and humidity.

Seriously though, I love most technology, but because of the security concerns, and other glitches, I find smart speakers odd, creepy, and more annoying than helpful, like the autocorrect feature when I'm typing on my cellphone (which I find aggravating and bloody bossy).

And you're right mike marshall, someday we'll all have to have one. Shades of the terrific popcorn movie "I, Robot" with Will Smith. (shudder)

I'm looking forward to part two of the article as well.

Last edited by betaylored (July 25, 2018 9:00 pm)

Count me as a fellow "luddite|" concerning this piece of tech.

I am a lifelong space geek and as a rule am pro technology;  although I'm not one to buy the latest products just because they are new.

Regarding these new gizmos,  reports of them forwarding/broadcasting conversations picked up by their microphones to third parties,  is enough for me to say no thanks!

In part 2 of his article on FYImusicnews.ca, Holiday gets controversial, arguing for a massive overhaul of radio that would create super stations across the country, in order to better monetize the new way of listening to the medium.

What happens to local content that seems to be such a vital part of broadcasting as it now exists? 

From the article:

"But there’s no live and local!!"

Well, let’s look at that. Time, local weather, local news, local traffic, winter school closing: all on your phone, iPad, computer or these speakers instantly. No waiting for the radio station format to come around and do it. Instant. You can argue pretty quickly that a station (TV or Radio) is now mostly obsolete for these services. Ok, let’s be kind. How about redundant.

"Also, most radio stations have killed the time and news after mornings already. So, what’s left that’s local?  Traffic and commercials. That’s pretty much it really. Most certainly ads won’t disappear so not a lot missing."

I'm not sure I want to live in Pat's envisioned radio world, but you can decide for yourself if he has a point by reading the rest here.

Perhaps and it's exactly what I expected you to say.

However, there's a reason I don't listen to a lot of CBC Radio. While I have an interest in what goes on elsewhere in this country, I really don't care about clam fishing in Newfoundland. (I'm not making this up - CBC actually did a half hour documentary on this topic a long time ago.) 

Network radio, with only marginal local input, would obviate the need for a CFRB or a 640. After all, do people in Vancouver care about Doug Ford trying to reduce the size of Toronto City Council? I doubt it would even be discussed here if it was happening there and not here. 

Yet this morning's radio was very interesting to me precisely because it WAS local and directly affects me. By Pat's logic, it would just get a quick mention (if at all) and we'd be on to something else. And all so if I tell my smart speaker to bring up Newstalk, I don't get KFI in L.A.? (which would be geoblocked in Canada anyway, thanks to a foolish decision by CBS, but that's another topic altogether.)

I realize he's mostly talking about music formats, where it's not such a big deal. But how would a 680 News survive in such a scenario? We tried that here a long time ago - it was called CKO and it went off the air a few years later. (Ironically, it's the frequency CBC Radio 1 now occupies in T.O.) 

It may not be the economic powerhouse it once was, but local radio still matters to me. Always will. If they all went network, as Holiday suggests, I'd find something else to listen to as I walk the dog. And it wouldn't be a Vancouver dog.