-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Ch 5 and 6 TV to FM
- Thread starter mgpt6
- Start date
We could have receivers in the marketplace in a heartbeat if the FCC approved. Most radios in Asia already tune from 76 to 108 MHz on FM, because the Japanese FM band is 76-90 MHz, so they just combine that with the 88-108 that everyone else uses to make one big FM tuning range.mgpt6 said:
Many U.S.-market radios already can unlock the full 76-108 FM range just by pressing a "secret" button combination, although that usually also switches the AM band to 9 KHz channel spacing.
satech said:
The problem is that nearly nobody buys "a radio" today. They buy devices that have radios in them, like docking stations, clocks, cars, etc.
The average age of US cars is approaching 9 years. To get a conversion to the new band for in-car listeners would take over 8 years just to reach half the cars. As to aftermarket, who is going to replace a car radio so they can hear the AM stations they don't listen to anyway on a new band?
I went into "Radio" Shack looking for a specialty battery the other day, and except for those crank operated disaster radios, Radio Shack does not carry radios.
YES! We need analog FM on these frequencies. To heck with the high costs for HD for consumers and broadcasters. We could re-use and retool a lot of equipment to go on this band pretty easily. I personally think we should ask for 2-6 on a secondary basis to EXISITING TV stations. That way there would be plenty of space available for analog FM simulcast of AM stations and room for those that want to play radio (LPFM) on the lower frequecies. Each "AM" in a market should be allocated a spot in the higher channels available in the area, then the rest should be given out to the LPFM whatever people. It would be very simple for the ch 5 and 6 frequencies to be a simple mod for the Fm manufactures, so that would be almost an instant availablity for those that wanted new radios that would get the new channels. Those that wanted the LPFM type programming could simply look for old analog TV band radios to hear their niche programming. It would be a win-win-win.
The only radio people that, of course, wouldn't want this is some of the narrow-minded big corporate guys. Sadly, they own AMs too and should be onboard, but they are in many cases too close-minded to accept any threat of any new "competition".
The problem with this is that if Ibiquity gets wind they will hire someone to lobby Congress to coerce the FCC to make it all digital. Too bad that the New band that has potential will be running a 20 year old proprietary (not open ended) CODEC that swims more than a frog in a pond. That way they can make a bunch of money licencing all these new channels, and continue ruining the radio industry. Can't remember who said it but someone summed it up well describing HD radio
"polliticly driven junk engineering" Wish we could keep it analog.
"polliticly driven junk engineering" Wish we could keep it analog.
Amen to that.
RFGuy said:
OKCRadioGuy said:
Let me second that emotion!
Don't be suprised when the Feds require you to do IBOC, if you want to use this swath of spectrum.
Remember expanded band AM? All new authorizations in that band had to do C-Quam.
I could see the same thing happening here. Comm. Clyburn also recommended more use of HD Radio subchannels.
It's very easy way to stuff more programming choices and voices on limited spectrum.
People have put up with AM audio quality for almost a hundred years. They'll get used to CODEC artifacts....ask anyone that owns a satellite radio.
Remember expanded band AM? All new authorizations in that band had to do C-Quam.
I could see the same thing happening here. Comm. Clyburn also recommended more use of HD Radio subchannels.
It's very easy way to stuff more programming choices and voices on limited spectrum.
People have put up with AM audio quality for almost a hundred years. They'll get used to CODEC artifacts....ask anyone that owns a satellite radio.
Put up with AM? Before NRSC AM sounded great! Premph and brickwall then complain about the quality.AM Seemed to do the trick for many years,Many family sat around an old AM radio listening to quality programming. Kinda like our industry was built on AM. Do not discard our history. I guess by your response MP3 is audiophile quality. Take your bit reduced representation of an analog waveform that eats sidebands and I will take my old analog AM, static and all!!!! No offence intended. I just hate to hear anyone degrade where we came from.
Someone should write a propsoal to the FCC or contact their Congressman or both in support of expanding the radio band to vacant ch 5 and 6. All new lpfm's am's converts and nce's could go there!
edarmsttrong said:
Except that the CQUAM requirement was conveniently ignored.
"Put up with?" Sorry if you have never taken the trouble to make AM sound good, but many have.
When I hear such moaning about the "sound of AM", I wonder just how much is willful cynicism, how much is lack of comprehension,
and how much is just plain bad experience with bad equipment.
How come my AM is smooth as cream yet cuts like a razor?
Square waves are not the answer, particularly when they won't stay "square" at MW.
After all the migration has happened, how about we ban digital modes and all square wave mod products in MW, and use it for something useful that WORKS at that wavelength ....like ....oh, I dunno, Radio or something. We could even play MUSIC!
K
kenglish
Guest
IIRC, my Denon Supertuner TU-680NAB, sounded pretty good with that NRSC curve...when used at both ends (transmit and receive). I think it's all that new stuff they did, to chop off the bandwidth for digital, that made it bad. I seem to recall that that's also called "NRSC"...but, it's a different animal.
Keep in mind that this particular Commissioner is the only one of five in favor of this. If majority rules, she will not win. The Chairmain is more interested in broadband and mobile phone than broadcasting. He sees this as a source of revenue, not for non-commercial radio stations.
On the one hand, it would help the FCC in their agenda of having more minority owned radio stations, more LPFM, and more NCE radio. But so far, they haven't done anything towards that goal besides hold hearings.
On the one hand, it would help the FCC in their agenda of having more minority owned radio stations, more LPFM, and more NCE radio. But so far, they haven't done anything towards that goal besides hold hearings.
One thing no one has mentioned with this topic is what to do with the handful of TV stations remaining on Chs. 5 and 6.
If they remain on those channels, the wideband nature of their signals will cause objectionable interference not only in the immediate area of their coverage, but sporadic e-skip will carry them occasionally to wide areas of the country, where they will also cause occasional interference in those areas.
If the rules are rewritten to force them to migrate to new channels, it is unfair to force the owners of these stations to bear the cost of another channel migration, especially so soon on the heels of the digital coversion. Some of them, especially the low-power stations, might just decide it's less expensive to fight to stay where they are.
Are any organizations willing to pony up the $$$ to free up the channels? I don't think the government will, and the NAB won't. Until someone comes up with a solution to this, getting all of the radio stations into those channels is going to be a pipe dream.
Later . . . .
If they remain on those channels, the wideband nature of their signals will cause objectionable interference not only in the immediate area of their coverage, but sporadic e-skip will carry them occasionally to wide areas of the country, where they will also cause occasional interference in those areas.
If the rules are rewritten to force them to migrate to new channels, it is unfair to force the owners of these stations to bear the cost of another channel migration, especially so soon on the heels of the digital coversion. Some of them, especially the low-power stations, might just decide it's less expensive to fight to stay where they are.
Are any organizations willing to pony up the $$$ to free up the channels? I don't think the government will, and the NAB won't. Until someone comes up with a solution to this, getting all of the radio stations into those channels is going to be a pipe dream.
Later . . . .
Matt Smith said:
It's possible that 5 & 6 could be shared by existing TV and new radio services much like the sharing of 14 to 19 (or does it go up to 20) by TV and major metro area land mobile. Existing 5/6 TV operations could stay on those channels, but no new TVs would be authorized.
Still, I'd say it's a pipe dream for now, until a majority of commissioners are willing to smoke from that pipe..
Congressmen?
The Honorable Andre Carson(D) and Honorable Mike Pence(R) and Dan Burton(R) of Indiana are in support of an upgrade for WJCF 88.1 to move to vacated 87.9. (WRTV 6 Indianapolis) All have commented with the Commission. Class A to Class B1.
The application was the first in the nation and had a waiver request to use the frequency. In support of: The allocation point exceeds required distance to Canada. No Class D stations are in the area which need to upgrade as Channel 6 kept any Class D stations from being built new and Channel 6 helped transition former Class D stations years ago. No Channel 6 facilities are impacted. This is a minor move of 1 channel. Most stations can move 3 channels up or down. The station would increase 60dbu coverage from 26,000 persons to 450,000 persons.
While there is support from 3 Congressmen and no objections to the upgrade/move, Staff has not acted and indicates it may wait to make a decision.
This is a station that has been on air 10 years and has been locked into a specific coverage thnat is much less than the upgrade proposed. This frequency 87.9 is in the allocations table but has been used for Class D relocations not by law but by preference.
The Honorable Andre Carson(D) and Honorable Mike Pence(R) and Dan Burton(R) of Indiana are in support of an upgrade for WJCF 88.1 to move to vacated 87.9. (WRTV 6 Indianapolis) All have commented with the Commission. Class A to Class B1.
The application was the first in the nation and had a waiver request to use the frequency. In support of: The allocation point exceeds required distance to Canada. No Class D stations are in the area which need to upgrade as Channel 6 kept any Class D stations from being built new and Channel 6 helped transition former Class D stations years ago. No Channel 6 facilities are impacted. This is a minor move of 1 channel. Most stations can move 3 channels up or down. The station would increase 60dbu coverage from 26,000 persons to 450,000 persons.
While there is support from 3 Congressmen and no objections to the upgrade/move, Staff has not acted and indicates it may wait to make a decision.
This is a station that has been on air 10 years and has been locked into a specific coverage thnat is much less than the upgrade proposed. This frequency 87.9 is in the allocations table but has been used for Class D relocations not by law but by preference.
DavidEduardo said:
David, I'm close to your age, I recall putting FM adapters on car radios which were AM only so I suspect that should the FCC expand the FM band to use the spectrum occupied by TV channels five and six that such devices could be made available for that change as it was back then.
You say AM is outdated and then you go on to say no one would listen if the stations were relocated onto a band that you say everyone loves. So which is it the technology or the programming?
Personally I don't want anymore unlistenable music performed by people with little or no talent so I would welcome an expanded band with more choice of content. The interest in satellite and my personal use of streaming stations says that there is an audience so if they could get it they will listen. Someone might even listen to news and news talk on the band they use rather than that nasty old amplitude modulated dinosaur band.
I hate those "devices" with radios as they have bad to horrible reception. I can only receive four or five FM stations here in Southeastern Iowa and a couple of AM's. On FM it gets interference as I walk around the room and something within the built in CD player wipes out most of the AM band with a warbling woop woop sound (I've tracked it using my Walkman). Another Wal-Mart rollback gone bad! My old Sony Walkman with a Cassette player pulls in more AM and FM and I can hook it to an extra set of computer speakers but doesn't have an AC adapter so I burn through a lot of batteries to do that. I used to have an early portable no-name player that did have plug for an AC adapter but the left channel died so it was tossed when I moved from LA.
There are those Bose radios but I've hear mixed reviews on them and they seem a bit pricey to find out they aren't so hot. I'm looking for a good recommendation on a wifi capable set with AM/FM too. No HD here so no use getting that, the nearest operating are in Des Moines or the Quad Cities.
One such proposal is here: http://www.broadmax.org/.
Please review the document in the link above, in which space seems to be found for everybody.
Maps, call-letters and specific issues are addressed by the respected engineers who prepared the report. Only problem that I see is that it all makes too much sense.
- Status