FM Band Expansion?

[stormy01]

Has anyone seen any information recently on the possibility of the FM band being extended down to as low as 76MHz?
Many of would be interested in any steps taken by industry, public radio and the FCC in this matter.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

I like the concept as long as it would reduce congestion & interference on the existing FM band. In particular, I would like to see all HD radio/IBOC banished from the 88-108mhz portion of the band & have at least a portion of the new band assigned to digital HD service. If this expansion does happen, I would encourage much thought to go into it with a goal of improving coverage area. The current scheme (push IBOC signals along side of analog signals, shoehorn as many signals as possible into every populated area, drop interference standards to allow more translators & LPFM's, etc) has done just the opposite. I'm for making the stations we have healthier...the dropping value of existing stations demonstrates beyond doubt that we have more than enough stations already. Look how many mhz TV occupies vs what radio has. Radio deserves more bandwidth, but should use it to improve QUALITY rather QUANTITY.

 

[trusty]

With current spacing in a market, it seems like you would gain 15 frequencies (ex: 76.1, 76.9, 77.7, 78.5, 79.3, 80.1, 80.9, 81.7, 82.5, 83.3, 84.1, 84.9, 85.7, 86.5, 87.3).

How about clearing out some of the crowded AM band, and give the clears back to us?

(Also, all the AM band could fit on analog TV channels 2-6. It would look something like this:

54-60.5 TV Ch. 2
60.7 540
60.9 550
61.1 560
61.3 570
61.5 580
61.7 590
61.9 600
62.1 610
62.3 620
62.5 630
62.7 640
62.9 650
63.1 660
63.3 670
63.5 680
63.7 690
63.9 700
64.1 710
64.3 720
64.5 730
64.7 740
64.9 750
65.1 760
65.3 770
65.5 780
65.7 790
65.9 800
66.1 810
66.3 820
66.5 830
66.7 840
66.9 850
67.1 860
67.3 870
67.5 880
67.7 890
67.9 900
68.1 910
68.3 920
68.5 930
68.7 940
68.9 950
69.1 960
69.3 970
69.5 980
69.7 990
69.9 1000
70.1 1010
70.3 1020
70.5 1030
70.7 1040
70.9 1050
71.1 1060
71.3 1070
71.5 1080
71.7 1090
71.9 1100

72-73 Fixed Mobile
73-74.6 Radio
Astronomy
74.6-74.8 Fixed Mobile
74.8-75.2Aeronautical
Radio Navigation
75.2-75.4 Fixed Mobile
75.4-76.0 Fixed Mobile

76.1 1110
76.3 1120
76.5 1130
76.7 1140
76.9 1150
77.1 1160
77.3 1170
77.5 1180
77.7 1190
77.9 1200
78.1 1210
78.3 1220
78.5 1230
78.7 1240
78.9 1250
79.1 1260
79.3 1270
79.5 1280
79.7 1290
79.9 1300
80.1 1310
80.3 1320
80.5 1330
80.7 1340
80.9 1350
81.1 1360
81.3 1370
81.5 1380
81.7 1390
81.9 1400
82.1 1410
82.3 1420
82.5 1430
82.7 1440
82.9 1450
83.1 1460
83.3 1470
83.5 1480
83.7 1490
83.9 1500
84.1 1510
84.3 1520
84.5 1530
84.7 1540
84.9 1550
85.1 1560
85.3 1570
85.5 1580
85.7 1590
85.9 1600
86.1 1610
86.3 1620
86.5 1630
86.7 1640
86.9 1650
87.1 1660
87.3 1670
87.5 1680
87.7 1690
87.9 1700)

 

[crainbebo]

That would be nice, but AM DXing on the 60-87 mHz area would be almost impossible, because the best you can DX FM day or night would be about 100 miles. On AM, it would be 200 miles daytime and 2000 miles nighttime. So, if you wanted to get, KFI for example, would you have to wait until summer for the hit and/or miss E-skip season?

-crainbebo

 

[gr8oldies]

Somehow don't hear "63.9 WLW". Theyd be better off to push the iPhone app than relocate to a band where there are no radios

 

[Tom Wells]

Expansion is fine. Relocation would be disastrous. The advantages of MW propogation and the behavior of radio at MW frequencies
are, to me, much more valuable than the advantages of using FM. Line of sight coverage is interesting, but is not
"real radio" in the way that AM is, where I can wonder about the hurricane in the Gulf right now, and tune to WWL New Orleans here in Chicago for direct news from a place where it will receive major coverage. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, I tuned straight to WCCO to hear what was going on. Once there is plan to make "clear channel" type coverage available that can cover 1/4 or 1/3 of the nation, I would support such a move. Of course, physics makes this impossible.
Moving to 76-88 for the "benefits" of frequency modulation, along with the propogation differences seems to me like trading away
your feet to get your hair back..... the hair's nice, but feet are a LOT more functional.

 

[romer979fm]

Moving to 76-88 for the "benefits" of frequency modulation, along with the propogation differences seems to me like trading away
your feet to get your hair back..... the hair's nice, but feet are a LOT more functional.

Tom...that's the best analogy I've seen in a long time! I will be steaing it...

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Why not simulcast for 20 years and let the small AM stations drop off when they want to when most of their listeners aren't bothering with the AM signal anymore anyway? Here's a thought too. At that point the bigger stations may want to PAY the little guys to go away for a reasonable price. If the FCC allowed the little guys to keep their new found FM digs and dump the AM signal not many are listening to anyway and the big guys pay them to shut it off, everyone would win. I'm for turning 2-6 into a AM band replacement. Let's do analog FM with the same thoughts of doing FM HD there if anyone cares. Keep in mind that there are Japanize and other radios that will already tune the band, plus old "TV" radios out there. If someone wanted to listen, they could pretty easily and cheaply. It would be cheap and simple for AM stations to aquire an old used exicter/transmitter too and possibly retune it down...

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I'd rather see the spectrum used for internet broadband. The lower frequencies would do well along remote highways, and we could stream any station we wanted - including AM - on web radios.

There is little on AM any more to get me excited. It seems to be relegated to talk, sports, ethnic, and unpopular religious formats.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'd rather see the spectrum used for internet broadband. The lower frequencies would do well along remote highways, and we could stream any station we wanted - including AM - on web radios.

There is little on AM any more to get me excited. It seems to be relegated to talk, sports, ethnic, and unpopular religious formats.

The problem with using ANY digital mode, especially in longer wavelengths, is that the resolution is insufficient to
accurately "follow" or define the data. The higher the frequency, the better for high speed data.

Combine this with the tendency of square-wave modulation byproducts to spread out energy over a VERY wide bandwidth,
and such a plan would be akin to an open sewer. The effulent stays in the ditch, but the smell spreads over a very wide area,
breeds disease and destroys the value of everything in the region. MW is too valuable to turn into an open sewer.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

MW is too valuable to turn into an open sewer.

It is already there - with way too many stations on the air, too many unregulated appliances like touch lamps and dimmers, and too much Spanish language chatter coming over the border. The time to enforce interference problems started about 40 years ago - when the FCC was already focused on more "important" issues such as minority ownership. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box is long since opened, and the AM band is almost completely trashed. I am reminded of a science fiction show where a whole town was transported to a distant planet - ground, houses, and all. Upon waking up, one resident turned on their car radio to do a bit of alien DX and found the AM band squealing loudly. How prophetic was THAT?!

Unless we are willing to go through a massive re-structuring of the AM frequency assignments, and a massive effort to clean up RF pollution on the AM band - neither of which today's "do nothing" FCC will even touch - the AM band is doomed to slow decline due to ever increasing numbers of stations and ever increasing interference until it is no longer usable at all. The FCC, it would seem, is fully in support of the trashing of the AM band - as evidenced by the quick and reckless approval of first daytime, then nighttime IBOC for AM, then the total lack of investigation and resolution of interference issues.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

The market itself might "fix" the problem when more and more AMs go dark. Those that are still useful may be able to move some things around and someday increase power when the holes become available. I'd rather see the migration of smaller AMs to 2-6 TV bands on a secondary basis, but that would be too sensable. I'd think most AM operators would be quite satified if they were allowed to simulcast indefinately on their crappy AM channel and an analog 2-6TV band channel. Over time they'd probably want to shut off the AM signal as it costs quite a bit to keep them running, especially directionals, and more and more radios that could tune their new band would be available. The advantage of allowing analog is that there are tons of surplus TV analog transmitter stuff just crying to go back to work out there. Most small AMs don't have much money, so it would be a good way for them to get things going economically. Radios are out there that will tune that band in flea markets. Other than a handful of TV stations nationwide, what else is the band good for? Why not re-allocate it to us on a secondary basis?

 

[trusty]

Squeezing more AM stations on its limited band has required some very creative patterns using real estate that stations would love to be able to sell. Let the jammers move to an expanded FM band, and give us our AM back.

 

[DanielBoone]

I completely agree about having HD on another bandwidth! I am getting really tired of the interference that an HD signal makes tearing into the Low-powered FM stations that I sometimes zero-in on! That is just not fair!

FCC, I hope you are reading this!!!

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I completely agree about having HD on another bandwidth! I am getting really tired of the interference that an HD signal makes tearing into the Low-powered FM stations that I sometimes zero-in on! That is just not fair!

FCC, I hope you are reading this!!!

The FCC doesn't care about rural listeners. There aren't enough of them to vote. They darn sure don't care about DX'ers.
They don't have to.

As far as a new AM band - considering the lousy job most corporately owned stations are doing at serving the public - and even turning a profit - I don't see granting each station a license in the new band as prudent for anybody. Make a new band somewhere - all digital - and level the playing field so everybody has a fair shot at a license. The auction system doesn't support diversity, it doesn't guarantee serving the public interest, it only insures that only those with lots of money get on the air. And we know the results of that!

 

[davideduardo]

It is already there - with way too many stations on the air, too many unregulated appliances like touch lamps and dimmers, and too much Spanish language chatter coming over the border.

One of the common broadcaster grievances in Mexico, dating back to the 40's, was and still is the quantity of English langauge programming that could be heard, even in central Mexico. If you look at most of the gulf state and Texas autohorizations with directionals from the 30's and 40's, the signal at night was dumped towards Mexico.

Mexico developed radio at a slower rate than the US, so the US took most of the good allocations, and sent the night signals south in so many cases.

Now, Bruce, you complain, in a state on the US border, that you hear Spanish language stations from the other side of the border (why is is "chatter" as opposed to just "stations?"). What would you expect on the frequencies that are not used nearby? Stations form North Dakota?

 

[ddsparxx]

I completely agree about having HD on another bandwidth! I am getting really tired of the interference that an HD signal makes tearing into the Low-powered FM stations that I sometimes zero-in on! That is just not fair!

FCC, I hope you are reading this!!!

I don't think the Federal Cookie Company cares.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Now, Bruce, you complain, in a state on the US border, that you hear Spanish language stations from the other side of the border (why is is "chatter" as opposed to just "stations?"). What would you expect on the frequencies that are not used nearby? Stations form North Dakota?

It goes both ways. With directional antenna technology, there is no reason why stations in the US, or stations in Mexico should go very far into the other country. But - it seems to me that the radio dial in Mexico is close to anarchy, with stations not powering down at sunset, and the government does nothing to stop them. That sort of behavior is something I expect from Castro, not from Mexico. Of course, suggesting that Mexican stations should power down to protect American airwaves is probably not "politically correct".

I like the clear channel apportionment scheme of 1941, based on relative population. If the population of Mexico has grown proportionally, maybe it is time for another conference to split up the air space more fairly. And I for darn sure would agree that the US is a frequency hog, with more and more stations - nonsensical allocations - coming on the air in a supposedly failing, outdated band. And the US is slopping IBOC sidebands all over the world - when it is clear the technology has failed. Personally, I wish Castro would fire up multi-million watt transmitters on every frequency to protest this IBOC AM nonsense, until we quit putting RF jamming in the guise of HD over HIS country. Or Mexico. Or Canada, or a combination of all three - give us static right back and see if we have the stomach for it!

 

[davideduardo]

It goes both ways. With directional antenna technology, there is no reason why stations in the US, or stations in Mexico should go very far into the other country.

Yet from the 30's and on, during the time where Mexico had little local radio, every US station within 500 miles or more of the border that was on a 1-B or regional channel and who wanted night operation shot most of the power over Mexico. When Mexico developed, the band at night was full of US signals.

But - it seems to me that the radio dial in Mexico is close to anarchy, with stations not powering down at sunset,

Mexican regulations accepted by both NARBA and the Mixed Commission specify that "sunrise" in those more southernly latitudes is 6 AM all year, and sunset is 7 PM.

and the government does nothing to stop them.

Indirectly, they are. In step one, already finalized, all AMs in Campeche, Quintana Roo, Yucatán and Tabasco states will move to FM. Other regions will follow at about 6 month intervals. It's thought that there will be fewer than 75 AMs left in Mexico. This is similar to the roughly 60% reduction in AMs in Canada.

That sort of behavior is something I expect from Castro, not from Mexico. Of course, suggesting that Mexican stations should power down to protect American airwaves is probably not "politically correct".

If you follow the DX clubs, the number of US stations doing the same is likely much larger. The "SFA" joke has been told among engineers for decades (a parody of the STA, or Special Temporary Authorization) meaning "Special Football Authorization" where smaller market daytimers stayed on the air till lat on Fridays to cover High School footbal games.

I like the clear channel apportionment scheme of 1941, based on relative population. If the population of Mexico has grown proportionally, maybe it is time for another conference to split up the air space more fairly.

Quite intelligently, the Mexican authorities declared that AM stations were today at a competitive disadvantage and that to save the jobs and their overall empact on the economy, all stations that would fit would be moved to FM.

In many places in the world, there is a better understanding of the true state of AM. And that is "state" as in "lying in state."