05/05/2022
There is no resurgence of shortwave radio
by Gerhard Straub P.E.
Gerhard Straub is the managing member of The Chalaco Group, LLC, and formerly the director of the Broadcast Technologies Division in the Office of Technology, Services and Innovation at USAGM. Prior to that, he was a senior engineer at the consulting firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc.
The title and focus of the recent opinion piece in Radio World, “Why Reviving Shortwave is a Non-Starter,” is confusing, because it is hard to revive something that is not dead. In fact, USAGM is in the middle of a multi-million dollar expansion of shortwave capability at one of its facilities at this very moment. In the past decade, no USG shortwave stations have been shut down, except for one that was beyond economical repair due to severe storm damage. It is true that listener use of shortwave, especially in modern urban areas, has declined with the expansion of media choices available today. There is no argument that shortwave is not the best way to reach the majority of casual listeners during normal times. However, this is not a normal time. This is war. While listenership to radio is based on audience research and surveys, how many of these were conducted during war? One cannot extrapolate peace time results to a time of war.
There are countless accounts in the media of the Ukrainian people making Molotov cocktails to use against invading forces. Clearly, these are ineffective against modern tanks and artillery. In the same vein, can one imagine leaving an old gun in the closet, well, because it is old? Of course not. Any means available is going to be used to try to help the war effort. While any of these measures may not have a huge impact, even small victories help the cause.
The same can be said of shortwave radio. It is one arrow in the quiver. What rational argument can be made for not using every available asset in the information war, just as all available assets are being used in the physical war? Not everyone is adept at using VPN or Tor to circumvent internet censorship. However, most people do know how to tune a radio. Even if one is equipped to use a VPN, how does that work when the city has been bombed and there is no power. That “old” battery operated transistor radio still works. Content plays a major role as well. People will use the media that has the compelling content they need. If the winning lottery numbers were to be announced the day before the drawing, but only on shortwave radio, you can be assured there would be a run on shortwave radios, even in the big cities. We are talking about content that is more important than any lottery here.
There is the argument that people do not have shortwave radios just laying around and that they are unavailable. There is some truth in that. However, let’s think about this for a minute. Based on various estimates on the internet, Russia has about 38,000 Amateur Radio Operators. Let’s say that there are double that number of hobbyist shortwave listeners. That’s over 100,000 shortwave radios and they had to get their equipment somewhere, and that number does not include people that still do have a radio stashed away somewhere. That is still a potentially very small portion of the population. But just like with internet censorship, the goal is to get the information through the “firewall”. Once it is on the other side, it can be spread internally. Something that no one seems to mention as well is that military forces tend to have HF (shortwave) radio, if not for primary then at least backup, over the horizon command and control. So, probably every Russian command and control vehicle has a shortwave radio. Wouldn’t we like to tell them what is really going on?
Finally, let’s talk cost. The shortwave infrastructure already exists. Internal costs for an hour of shortwave transmission time runs probably somewhere from $30 to $100 or more per hour. Let’s say it is $100 per hour to be near the middle but on the high side. Two hours a day of shortwave transmission then costs about $6,000 per month or $72,000 per year. The USAGM budget usually runs around $750M per year so this would be like 0.01% of the budget. Is that too much to spend to have a possibility of getting information to people that desperately need it and may not be able to get it by other means? It is a very small gamble to take, even if it results in zero listeners, which is highly unlikely.
The infrastructure exists, the potential to reach people that desperately need information is moderate to high, and we are in an information war. The cost is low and the potential payoff is high, so what possible rational argument can be made for not using all available resources, including shortwave radio?