Another B bites the Dust: WAYY 790 Eau Claire WI

[Schroedingers Cat]

Perhaps after we learn the results of the TV repack auction that enough TV stations have elected to merge operations, such as the Quincy Newspaper/Sinclair moves in Peoria and South Bend (Quincy acquired Sinclair's net affiliations in Peoria; Sinclair acquired Quincy's net affiliations in South Bend) that there will be little or no need for future TV migrations down to low band VHF. Maybe if that occurs, FM might get 82 to 88 MHz. At the very least, the FM band could add 87.5, 87.7 and 87.9 except in those areas with an existing channel 6 TV operation.

Contour protection for 92 to 108 MHz hasn't been received well in the US, but I think it may just be a matter of time before it happens.

And I don't think most AMs value coverage outside of their COLs, so chopping the extra towers for night ops seems a no-brainer. But what might the future bring? Digital operation on AM could become more robust...but who knows?

It would seem that the high HF or low VHF frequencies are underutilized with cell phones, internet, and UHF trunking replacing many of the services that used them. I would support a dedicated digital only band in those frequency ranges. You only need 1 MHz or so to replace the AM band, according to proponents of digital only broadcasts. Going all digital on the existing AM or FM band would be the end of radio as we know it.

 

[KeithE4]

It would seem that the high HF or low VHF frequencies are underutilized with cell phones, internet, and UHF trunking replacing many of the services that used them. I would support a dedicated digital only band in those frequency ranges. You only need 1 MHz or so to replace the AM band, according to proponents of digital only broadcasts. Going all digital on the existing AM or FM band would be the end of radio as we know it.

Three problems:
1. Federal government services are allocated much of the 30-50 MHz band, and are out of the jurisdiction of the FCC. I'm not sure if non-government mobile (public safety and/or business radio) services still use the band, but if they are, they have to be accommodated.

2. Despite the lack of sunspots nowadays, and the sunspot cycle on its way down for a few years, E skip is always prevalent in the summer on low VHF. That was one reason why FM was moved above 88 MHz after the war, although that didn't cure the problem completely (I've worked ham stations on 2 meters via E skip, but it's relatively rare). Digital works best when propagation is line-of-sight. The ionosphere can cause phasing issues that can wreak havoc on digital transmissions.

3. If a new band is allocated, who's gonna buy the receivers? Who buys radios now, unless they're surrounded by a car or home theater system?

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Well, people are not buying the IBOC radios either, but that doesn't stop them from talking about an all digital AM band. I doubt that making a billion or more radios obsolete is going to make people want to go out and buy new radios either.

There are a lot of broadcast services and CB radio allocated in the 26-27 MHz range. We have to get beyond backwards thinking on the allotments also. If they can sell all these TV channels for nonbroadcast use, they certainly can carve out a MHz or so for digital only AM. Coaxial antennas would work well for transmitting an ERP which would get out 80-100 miles with tropospheric bending.

Why worry about E Skip on high HF and low VHF when AM BC at around 1 MHz skips all night nearly every night and even during critical hours? Digital on 1 MHz is nearly useless beyond a few miles for most stations due to skip. All digital won't fix that either.

 

[ftballfan]

Looked at the drawing and almost all of the city of Eau Claire would be inside the NIF of the new night pattern

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Looked at the drawing and almost all of the city of Eau Claire would be inside the NIF of the new night pattern

Have you listened to a signal on 770 or 790 with adjacent WBBM IBOC interference? Very noisy. Plus there are a lot of people who would live outside the NIF and close to Eau Claire. Plus there are a lot of stations that are very lackadaisical about changing to Night facilities. Particularly those who are 5 kW or more nondirectional days and flea power at night. Just one station that doesn't change drives the effective NIF way up. Also a lot of stations are on day facilities after Sunrise to the East and until Sunset for stations to the West.

 

[davideduardo]

Looked at the drawing and almost all of the city of Eau Claire would be inside the NIF of the new night pattern

Only about a third of the population of the Eau Claire ratings metro live in the city of Eau Claire. So on those short winter days, a good portion of AM and PM drive will be served by a signal two thirds of the market can't hear.

 

[KeithE4]

Well, people are not buying the IBOC radios either, but that doesn't stop them from talking about an all digital AM band. I doubt that making a billion or more radios obsolete is going to make people want to go out and buy new radios either.

They can talk all they want. Unless someone can figure out a way to keep the ionosphere from changing phase relationships between the carriers in the channel, then digital broadcasting on the Medium Wave band (AM is a form of modulation, not in any way related to frequency -- it's just that we're used to that term in the US) won't work.

There are a lot of broadcast services and CB radio allocated in the 26-27 MHz range. We have to get beyond backwards thinking on the allotments also. If they can sell all these TV channels for nonbroadcast use, they certainly can carve out a MHz or so for digital only AM. Coaxial antennas would work well for transmitting an ERP which would get out 80-100 miles with tropospheric bending.

It's not "backwards thinking." It's ITU treaties, and regional or worldwide frequency assignments. Those are inviolable unless a way is found to not interfere with the assigned services in other countries. UHF doesn't have that problem in the US, other than near the Canadian, Mexican, and Cuban borders. We have agreements in those cases, too.

Why worry about E Skip on high HF and low VHF when AM BC at around 1 MHz skips all night nearly every night and even during critical hours? Digital on 1 MHz is nearly useless beyond a few miles for most stations due to skip. All digital won't fix that either.

Different kind of skip. Skip on the MW band is due to the F2 layer (above 1500 kHz or so), and that the D layer goes away at night, allowing for better ground wave propagation on the lower frequencies. Upper HF and VHF frequencies have E-skip, which is an entirely different animal. In both cases, phase relationships can be altered which kills digital transmissions, just like a plane flying over your house can kill your OTA DTV reception for a few seconds. In the analog days, you'd just see ghosts on the picture. Digital is either perfect or gone. There is forward error correction at the transmitter, but it's not perfect.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Actually, the E layer is what mainly reflects AM BC signals. HF is mainly F layer. You were saying that the problem with upper HF and low VHF was more frequent sporadic E skip whereas AM BC skip occurs every day except during severe Auroral wipe outs. The AM BC band is seriously and inherently flawed for digital only broadcasting, because of skywave interference. If you have an IBOC receiver, and listen to AM, it is obvious. Groundwave service middays is impressive for very powerful low dial position stations, but deteriorates quickly during CH and Nighttime when skywave is active. It is poor for less powerful stations and high dial position stations, as the weak groundwave is quickly disrupted by static and other electrical interference. The HF digital service I described would be mainly line of sight. I agree an expanded FM band in the 76-88 MHz range to replace AM would be better.

 

[joebtsflk1]

WAYY could stick their FM translator below the WAXX antenna on the channel 13 tower...500 meters plus HAAT on a 600 meter tower would have a huge coverage area.

Problem is, that tower is at least 30 miles from Eau Claire. OK, so maybe they figure out a way to get a 2nd translator for WAYY. No more 250 mile move-ins for them, so that might be a taller order.

 

[cyberdad]

Only about a third of the population of the Eau Claire ratings metro live in the city of Eau Claire. So on those short winter days, a good portion of AM and PM drive will be served by a signal two thirds of the market can't hear.

Exactly as I alluded to earlier. And I was thinking more or less in terms of the landscape as it was when I lived there for a brief period in the 70s. The area has built out from the core city for miles in just about every direction since then.

 

[cyberdad]

WAYY could stick their FM translator below the WAXX antenna on the channel 13 tower...500 meters plus HAAT on a 600 meter tower would have a huge coverage area.

Problem is, that tower is at least 30 miles from Eau Claire. OK, so maybe they figure out a way to get a 2nd translator for WAYY. No more 250 mile move-ins for them, so that might be a taller order.

I'm not sure if the original channel 13 tower is still standing. About 500' and in a good location in the southeast part of town. WBIZ-FM broadcast from that stick for years and had a big-time signal. If it's still around, it'd be ideal for a translator. Given the development in the area, however, my guess is that it's long gone.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not sure if the original channel 13 tower is still standing. About 500' and in a good location in the southeast part of town. WBIZ-FM broadcast from that stick for years and had a big-time signal. If it's still around, it'd be ideal for a translator. Given the development in the area, however, my guess is that it's long gone.

The problem is that the radio market is Chippewa and Eau Claire counties, so the translator would ideally be just a bit NE of the city itself to get as much of the radio market in as possible.