KCAL FM

[K108 Sacramento]

Didn't the fcc just finish a television repack?????

 

[davideduardo]

The purchase price radio stations was based on the signal and the population it reached. If the FM band was "realigned," who would compensate the big station owners for their loss, and would the small station owners be required to pay someone for their improved signal?

That, in fact, was the major objection to instituting DAB in the US. In nations where the government controls significant portions of the radio listening, they could obligate the change.

Think UK and the BBC as an example.

In Canada, private broadcasters managed to kill the digital band transition event though the CBC backed it. (That is a terribly simplified analysis, but valid for an analysis of the US situation.

The fact that an AM daytimer on 1220 might get an equal facility to that of a full signal on Mt Wilson in LA would destroy the value of many publicly owned radio groups was a powerful argument against the concept. Broadcasters managed to show that HD was enough digital for the US.

And the evidence shows that nations where broadcasting is open and free have ignored DAB totally... think of all the nations to the south of the USA as nearby examples.

 

[davideduardo]

Didn't the fcc just finish a television repack?????

The most important factor there was a public need for more cellular bandwidth. TV was the victim, not the beneficiary. The voices in Washington saw that in excess of 80% of TV viewing was not over the air, and figured that the move was the most beneficial overall. Telecoms contribute more to election campaigns than TV stations do, too.

Objectively viewing TV, in most markets nearly all the major stations had somewhat comparable facilities,so the losses were not as dramatic.