Also keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 is designed for better reception on small mobile devices, where small antennas are necessary. VHF low-band frequencies have wavelengths between 3.4 and 5.6 meters, while the current UHF TV frequencies are between 49 and 64 centimeters, much more practical for mobile devices as well as external TV antennas.
-
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
FCC to consider ongoing operation of existing FM6/Franken FMs, Expanded FM Band and Elimination of Reserved Band Protection Requirements
- Thread starter Michi
- Start date
Small mobile devices? Most of those devices are watching video online, via YouTube TV or other streaming service, or a station's own app. How many smartphones have TV tuners built in? My guess is zero. How many smartphone manufacturers will install that circuitry? Again, my guess is zero.
I haven't seen a digital portable TV for sale in about a decade. Why would you think that a market for such receivers would come to life with the new system?
OFDM may be more noise-immune than 8VSB, but low band VHF is still low band VHF. Still too much atmospheric noise such as lightning. I would guess (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the amount of Forward Error Correction needed to overcome it would hurt performance.
And then there are issues with E-skip. How would 3.0 handle two stations from different parts of the country cutting in and out as propagation changes? It was enough of a mess with analog.
I don't disagree with you, was just pointing out that mobile reception quality was a consideration for the ATSC 3.0 standard. Same arguments can be made for digitizing the FM band. Who will buy new devices when better alternatives are already in place?
Honestly, as much as the radio geek in me loves the expanded lower FM band idea, it seems like an idea that's decades past it's time. And it would probably be about as successful as the expanded AM dial. Not good. Of all people, I actually have several portable radios that could tune these frequencies - but then again, I am an outlier.
To me, the answer is adopting a version of DAB (or DAB+) such as they have in the UK and Europe. They use frequencies that are in the 220 MHz portion of the spectrum. Just spent some time over there and had the foresight to purchase a Roberts brand portable FM/DAB receiver before I left ($55 on Amazon). It worked amazingly well. Even in England's smaller markets, you scanned and had access to all of the national brands, brand extension and many local signals (including many that are AM stations - but in crisp stereo). It behaved more like a streaming device than a radio as far as tuning was concerned, though I found the sound quality to be better than all but the most wideband streaming. To give an example; I was in Stoke and could probably receive 6-7 FM signals well. In DAB, over 50 were available, all with perfect sound.
Given this fascinating discussion about the future of radio, after playing with the DAB service in the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (who's offerings were the weakest, btw), I am convinced that this is a potential way forward for radio.
To me, the answer is adopting a version of DAB (or DAB+) such as they have in the UK and Europe. They use frequencies that are in the 220 MHz portion of the spectrum. Just spent some time over there and had the foresight to purchase a Roberts brand portable FM/DAB receiver before I left ($55 on Amazon). It worked amazingly well. Even in England's smaller markets, you scanned and had access to all of the national brands, brand extension and many local signals (including many that are AM stations - but in crisp stereo). It behaved more like a streaming device than a radio as far as tuning was concerned, though I found the sound quality to be better than all but the most wideband streaming. To give an example; I was in Stoke and could probably receive 6-7 FM signals well. In DAB, over 50 were available, all with perfect sound.
Given this fascinating discussion about the future of radio, after playing with the DAB service in the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (who's offerings were the weakest, btw), I am convinced that this is a potential way forward for radio.
Requiring franken FMs to have digital TV signal is a waste of resources just to satisfy some out of date FCC regulation. Just let them re-tune to proper 87.7 Mhz and run just like a normal FM station. If there is no good other use for ch 5, 6 TV spectrum then let FM broadcasters use it, whomever wants it on experimental basis with low barrier to entry. Existing FM receivers can be firmware updated and new ones sold with 76-108Mhz support out of the box. The only technical issue i see is greater potential for interference from tropospheric propagation on lower frequencies. But lots of small community, ethnic and experimental LPFMs can find a place in the low band.
I agree with your sentiment, but "I didn't see it, so it must not exist" is an odd mentality and excuse to have. Feel free to google Portable OTA TV, and have a look around. In addition, Techmoan's review of a portable is really good as well, and he has a vid for why we don't see as many portables as much anymore. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points.
I can't wait to see what will happen! This may be huge for those of us who are Dxers.
Mobile TV reception has been a weird unobtainable promise of TV engineers for years. As Keith pointed out; for some reason TV and radio nerds seem to forget that consumers can stream whatever they want on their existing smartphone. Why on God's green earth would someone go out of their way to buy some portable DTV receiver? Answer: They won't. Portable TV's are right up there in importance for consumers as radio station audio carried on an ATSC 3.0-modulated TV station. The consumer interest for both claims are less than zero.
They are licensed as TV stations, and it's not an "outdated regulation" to require a TV station to be a TV station, and not an off-frequency FM station
Everyone knows their real purpose. They are not TV stations. Just open ch. 6 band to FM service and be done with it rather than make them transmit complex and unwanted digital TV signal just to satisfy old rule on paper. I thought this thread was about proposed FCC reg. modifications.
If a tree falls in the forest...
They are only "radio stations" because someone found a loophole to operate a licensed TV station as a radio station. on a frequency that a lot of car radios can't tune clearly.
So? They found a way to get on the air legally. The rules should be modified to recognize them as FM stations because shutting them down would serve no good purpose. From what I heard being around people in the radio business, commercial broadcasters are the ones opposed to allowing more FM stations on the dial because they think it will pull away listeners from their stations. I think that's just gatekeeping of public airwaves for the sake of monetary revenue.
Last edited:
If you're putting radio stations on the air that no one but hobbyists can hear, no listeners or revenue to lose. Not to mention a lot of translators have come on the air in the last several years. Reclassifying a TV station as a radio station isn't something that just happens in the FCC. Once TV stations are licensed as TV stations they are TV stations.
H
Harvey_Dogg
Guest
Those of us who hold a HAM license would enjoy the skip that would go with Channels 2 through 6. The 11 year sunspot cycle is coming soon. Good for HAM TV but not radio broadcasting to the public.
Unfortunately, other than SSTV, Ham TV isn't permitted below 420 MHz. It'd be nice if the FCC assigned Channel 2 as a TV-allowed extension of 6 meters, but I have a better chance of being elected President than that happening.
Solar Cycle 25 is on the way up now. Conditions are still day-to-day, but much better than even last year.
I have said on the record at the FCC that Channels 2~4 would be better off with the Amateur Radio Service, especially Channel 2 for ATV operations. Ireland has given a big chunk of the (US) Ch. 2, 3 and 4 spectrum to the hams (including a big chunk of low band below 50).
A
AnyHuman
Guest
Stoner TV.
The Real Origin of 420 (and 4/20, and 4:20) Lies With a Bunch of High School Kids
They called themselves The Waldos, and they toked so we could rip.
Something else to consider; is the Commission has been working on a roadmap to all digital TV since 2000. Even LPTV's were required to transition to CD status. Allowing some TV to remain on channel 6 just to serve up aural analog audio at the far end of the FM band is completely counter to the long standing FCC roadmap.
H
Harvey_Dogg
Guest
Also, 100% analogue TV audio modulation is not the same as 100% FM broadcast station audio . TV audio sounds under modulated on an FM receiver.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's because analog TV audio only uses 25 kHz deviation, compared to 75 kHz on FM broadcast. The lower deviation will make TV audio sound lower in volume.
- Status