Antiquated AM signal rules for Atlanta

[BIGSTICK]

Sure, AM has gone down the tubes, no pun intended. But, it would seen to me that some of Atlanta major AM's could have a better signal at night. These FCC rules were in effect when Atlanta ended at 285 or even before. I mean 640 is a joke at night, 790, 920, 970, 1010 especially, others too many to mention. It just seems other cities with half the population of Atlanta have better am signals than we do. Just a thought. Yes, I know about ground conductivity too. But a strong signal can somewhat overcome that, WSB,,whom I have picked up in Calgary before...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

These FCC rules were in effect when Atlanta ended at 285 or even before.

I agree with your observation: Night-time coverage by Atlanta A.M. stations leaves something to be desired.

But Atlanta radio stations (and their opportunities) have been governed by the SAME FCC rules that are in effect for the rest of the country. The owners of radio stations always have to make decisions about how much they are willing to invest in transmitters, land and towers to make their stations function they way they like. If Atlanta AM radio is crippled, I would suggest it is because of decisions made by the stations, not because the FCC sat down and wrote rules that are unfair to an Atlanta that has grown since the rules were written.

 

[BIGSTICK]

Thanks, that makes sense...

 

[jabba17]

These FCC rules were in effect when Atlanta ended at 285 or even before.

I agree with your observation: Night-time coverage by Atlanta A.M. stations leaves something to be desired.

But Atlanta radio stations (and their opportunities) have been governed by the SAME FCC rules that are in effect for the rest of the country. The owners of radio stations always have to make decisions about how much they are willing to invest in transmitters, land and towers to make their stations function they way they like. If Atlanta AM radio is crippled, I would suggest it is because of decisions made by the stations, not because the FCC sat down and wrote rules that are unfair to an Atlanta that has grown since the rules were written.

The problem is, is that Atlanta is a johnny-come-lately to the club of Big Cities. Many of the old northeastern and midwestern Rust Belt cities' stations laid claim to the clear channels long before anyone in Atlanta (or elsewhere in the South) could, with the exception of You Know Who. Most southern large cities only have one clear channel class A, the notable exception being Nashville with WSM and WLAC.

Georgia Tech had the opportunity to keep WGST on what became a clear channel (890, WLS) but declined to do so and moved to 920 instead, much to the present-day chagrin of Clear Channel Communications.

You also see this in how the VHF TV channels were allocated by the FCC (although this is now moot with the advent of DTV, virtual channel numbers, and the exodus of TV stations on channels 2-6). There was a theoretical maximum of 7 VHF channels in a given market--2 or 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13--without having adjacent channels in the same market (3 and 4, and 6 and 7, are not adjacent). Big markets like NYC and Frisco got the max. Smaller markets got a smaller number (Atlanta got 4, as a midsize market), and the smallest markets had to make do with the crumbs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhf#United_States

This wouldn't have been such a problem if UHF had been around earlier and, more importantly, all TV sets had been required to receive UHF from the get-go (this requirement didn't come along until 1965). This caused many fourth networks (most notably DuMont) to never gain traction because of the lack of VHF affiliates, and smaller markets got only one or two very dominant VHF network affiliates, usually to the detriment of public stations and whichever of the Big Three got stuck on UHF (usually ABC).

If ATL had been bigger when the VHF allocations were given, we would have gotten more VHF stations--albeit somewhat to the detriment of neighboring markets like Augusta, GSP, Chattanooga, Birmingham, etc., which would have had to make room in a domino effect against those cities' adjacent markets.

The idea was that a larger city should get more stations to serve a larger population. What these models didn't take into account are the changes in population of different parts of the country.

 

[smedge2006]

The FCC has attempted to give more stations to more communities, by limiting Class A stations' protected radius to approximately 750 miles at night. This is what made 640 possible. But they still require protection of that limited skywave signal -- which constrains many of the duplicating stations' powers to 1,000 watts or less.

Also, by trying to squeeze several stations in the non-protected region of the country, they just ended up adding more lightbulbs of signal in a sea of interference. Not to mention that in an FM and beyond era, these small AM signals are mostly useless -- unless you can do what 640 in West Palm Beach did and blow all of your power into the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[N1WVQ]

You also see this in how the VHF TV channels were allocated by the FCC (although this is now moot with the advent of DTV, virtual channel numbers, and the exodus of TV stations on channels 2-6). There was a theoretical maximum of 7 VHF channels in a given market--2 or 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13--without having adjacent channels in the same market (3 and 4, and 6 and 7, are not adjacent). Big markets like NYC and Frisco got the max. Smaller markets got a smaller number (Atlanta got 4, as a midsize market), and the smallest markets had to make do with the crumbs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhf#United_States

[/quote]
I think you mean channels 4 & 5 aren't adjacent. 3: 60-66Mc., 4: 66-72Mc., 5: 76-82Mc..