FM X-Band 76-87.7 Mhz

[b-turner]

From what I have seen posted so far are lose-lose propositions. A struggling AM or LPFM should go on a portion of the band the typical radio listener cannot receive? Why would 1300 AM as a daytimer find 86.5 FM attractive and well worth the investment if the FCC allowed? If I was a LPFM you'd move me to 84.5, for example? How many listeners would my big investment give me in a week, a month, a year, or two years? If you were in business would you jump at biting the bullet on that?


I doubt the FCC will do much, if anything. People would oppose anything just as some would gladly welcome any change. You can be the NAB and others would fight any expansion tooth and nail. Expansion gives the opportunity of more competition.

I do not think internet listening will eclipse over the air listening. Can you name any actual local internet only stations that provide local programming, local news and weather? maybe one or two but I bet they're long gone by this time next year. Radio and internet only stations are very different animals. While people yell over the air radio is dead, the most listened to online stations are statistically the online versions of local over the air radio stations. Weird how that works out. Sure there are non-broadcast options but they don't have the reach over the air radio has.

The XM/Sirius must carry is a heck of an idea. This would be tough to regulate and it wouldn't pass muster with 'free' radio but then again, is the over the air TV station on Dish or cable 'free'? No, it isn't. There's an idea how to argue the 'must carry'. Now the question is: does the station get paid by XM/Sirius? Do the over the air stations 'pay' to be carried? What does a changing lineup do for XM/Sirius infrastructure?

 

[CTListener]

The XM/Sirius must carry is a heck of an idea. This would be tough to regulate and it wouldn't pass muster with 'free' radio but then again, is the over the air TV station on Dish or cable 'free'? No, it isn't. There's an idea how to argue the 'must carry'. Now the question is: does the station get paid by XM/Sirius? Do the over the air stations 'pay' to be carried? What does a changing lineup do for XM/Sirius infrastructure?

Logistically, it would be a nightmare. SiriusXM, which has been gradually dismantling its terrestrial repeater network for years, would have to reinvest in repeaters and have them placed literally everywhere local radio can be heard. Then it would have to program each one to relay only the AM and FM stations within a specified geographical area. Oh, and all of these local stations will have to be uplinked to the existing satellites, which would send down market-specific streams for the repeaters to process and send on to the end users. Good luck with that.

Also, since SiriusXM has finite bandwidth to fit its channels into, what programming OTHER than the must-carries would be left for listeners in the top three markets once every AM, FM and LPFM station has been accommodated? SXM already runs low-bitrate looped "channel off the air" announcements on certain talk channels when the sports play-by-play load is too heavy.

Must-carry, IMO, would be the death of SiriusXM. So why do you think it wouldn't pass muster with "free" radio?

 

[b-turner]

From a logistics standpoint, you are correct, the XM/Sirius must carry is not doable but of all the proposals it seems the most logical on paper. We have what had been cable TV doing must carry. Cable TV is a pay service, so is XM/Sirius. It is not such a leap for a must carry on XM/Sirius since there is already a similar example with cable/Dish.

If XM/Sirius has to 'pay' stations they must carry, what would subscription rates look like. Negotiating fees are huge when you include those that do the bidding for you and work through contract wording. In such a case, the consumer pays the inflated price.

 

[Kelly A]

That, and with Sirius XM holding only 1.3% estimated total of radio listening, why would anyone bother?

 

[b-turner]

Good point. Would that change if local radio signals were included? Over the air radio reaches more than 1.3%. If we think back to cable TV, I think we could have made the same argument years ago when cable TV grew. That's not to say I could see XM Sirius actually carrying local stations due to logistics and return on investment, but of the scenarios put forward at this point, it seems a more logical plan considering what had happened with cable TV and such. In other words, as far as the FCC is concerned, it seems to be a reasonable idea. As far as XM Sirius goes I'd try anything to suppress the idea.

 

[Kelly A]

In one word..bandwidth, or lack thereof. Unlike Direct-to-Home satellite TV (Dish and DirecTV), which use several different transponder frequencies (KA) to do local TV stations with market-specific 'spot beams' from the satellite, the satellites that Sirius/XM use don't have that capability. That means the local spot carried on a station in Spokane could be heard in Boston too. That in itself, would be a major problem for advertisers on a station.

Sirius-XM would have to give up 75% of their channels to cover just broadcasters in the major markets, so what would be left of even the paltry 1.3% of their existing business model?

 

[b-turner]

Exactly, and to change that model would far exceed the return on investment. XM Sirius would have to become an entirely different animal with a fully unknown equation of what that potential revenue might be. Personally I would think the typical subscriber would want to get their local station anywhere, so we'd be talking so many channels the platform to run that would be astronomical.

I'm just saying that given the fact cable has a must carry of local stations creates an already done scenario that has already been approved. If over the air listening statistics are anywhere close to accurate, there might be a substantial number who might consider paying even though they can listen free over the air. After all, we subscribe to television providers to receive local stations as well as stations not broadcast over the air. Even so, to implement such an animal would take such a huge investment I think it would scare any potential big dollar investors. As you say, the whole infrastructure would need to change.

Local carry does not mean a Spokane station would be heard in Boston, but in the Spokane ADI at most.

I've not mentioned if stations would want to be paid for their product or if public access channels would be required. Just a couple of extra cans of worms to open.

I have heard some ethnic programmers have 'leased' a channel on Dish and on XM Sirius. I know one of our former accounts offered TV and radio, leasing from both, just as they leased our station as they also did in markets where there was a substantial population interested in their programming. I suppose a struggling AM with original programming might be able to lease a channel. But that is not a local carry but an option should anyone feel it is viable.

 

[CTListener]

I have heard some ethnic programmers have 'leased' a channel on Dish and on XM Sirius. I know one of our former accounts offered TV and radio, leasing from both, just as they leased our station as they also did in markets where there was a substantial population interested in their programming. I suppose a struggling AM with original programming might be able to lease a channel. But that is not a local carry but an option should anyone feel it is viable.

SiriusXM's leased ethnic channels are the result of conditions the FCC placed on their merger (actually acquisition of XM by Sirius), which was not allowed under the original conditions of their licenses. Both services had to fork over a certain amount of bandwidth to "qualified entities," which turned out to be a motley assortment of ethnic broadcasters (Korea Today on XM) and minority race/religion educational broadcasters (Howard University, which programs two channels on XM; and Brigham Young University, which programs one). I'm unsure if Business Radio ("Powered by The Wharton School") or any of the Spanish-language channels are part of that requirement, as they are positioned outside of the "ghetto" (channels 140-145) that XM originally set aside for the government-mandated channels.

 

[b-turner]

Thank you CT Listener. I learned something new thanks to you. I didn't know about the requirement placed on them.

 

[MrBruce]

Hello all.

I know I am in support of the current FM broadcast band being expanded to include either 54MHz to 88.1 or 76MHz to 88.1MHz.

This X band expansion, would be very useful for both part 15 FM community radio stations and licensed stations as well, where the current FM broadcast band is congested with full powered and translator stations.

Over at the http://www.part15.us website and the ALPB (Association of Low Power Broadcasters) we are currently looking into the possibility of both a field strength increase for part 15 FM and also the expansion of the current FM broadcast band.

I personally feel an authorization of both, would allow more high schools the right to run campus stations that can be received off campus for community reception.

Other organizations could also take advantage of this band expansion, by having a greater possibility of finding and using an empty frequency and avoiding possible interference to another radio station.

Going back to the 1980's, the FCC expanded the Citizens Band from 26.965MHz to 27.405MHz because of band congestion. 23 channels was no longer viable because of the heavy usage of Citizens Band radio back in the day.

The current US broadcast band is in worse shape than Citizens Band ever was. I believe it should be expanded. I believe new radio services can be placed into that piece of spectrum, which could include a new radio service called the VLPFM radio service (Very Low Power Frequency Modulation).

VLPFM could allow anywhere from 500Mw to 10 Watts and an outdoor FM broadcast antenna. That FM broadcast antenna could include antenna heights of up to 100 feet on a tower.

There are a lot of FM transmitters available out there on the US market right now and I personally believe, there should be a new authorization to use them.

Bruce.

 

[TheBigA]

I personally feel an authorization of both, would allow more high schools the right to run campus stations that can be received off campus for community reception.

At one time, there was an interest in such a thing, but not any more. Local communities are looking for ways to cut school budgets, and the cost for starting a high school radio station far outweighs the advantages. Most of the high school stations I know of have been shut down.

 

[thelegacy]

This is an old thread but at the Association of Low Powered Broadcasters (ALPB) which is a group of part 15 hobbyists who would like to increase the field strength from 250 uVm @ 3 meters to 1000 uV/m @ 3 meters or the equivalent of a 500mW transmitter into a rubber duck or telescoping antenna. Just read h t t p : / / p a r t 1 5 . u s (remove spaces). you'll see all sorts of activity when I started to chat about increasing the field strength. Anyway the reason too that I bring it up is that several from another website that is supposed to be the authority of part 15 as they know the rules and the operator says he is a broadcast engineer claims that we'd never get the frequencies between the analog TV channels 5 & 6 because after the repack all the stations will move to VHF. We will have to see what happens after the repack if it does happen. If not I'd strongly push some of these frequencies to be allowed to be used at a higher field strength or 500mW into a rubber duck or stock antenna that comes with the transmitter. This could have a range of 1/4 mile to a Digital boombox with good sensitivity such as the Sony CFD S50. If your interested in petitioning the FCC for more field strength I urge you to join us @ h t t p : / / p a r t 1 5 . u s (Remove Spaces) and or join the ALPB as well. We need all the knowledgeable Radio hobbyists to join forces and maybe we can get this done. Especially if we're not content on playing on the all noise and static AM band.

 

[Kelly A]

This is an old thread but at the Association of Low Powered Broadcasters (ALPB) which is a group of part 15 hobbyists who would like to increase the field strength from 250 uVm @ 3 meters to 1000 uV/m @ 3 meters or the equivalent of a 500mW transmitter into a rubber duck or telescoping antenna.

That is ridiculous. A- That there is an association of part 15 hobbyists. B-That they seriously think the FCC would consider altering the limitations to Part 15 regulations. LPFM was supposed to be a cure for radio wannabee's, including reduction in pirate's. Has it stopped Pirates? Nope. Do part 15 hobbyists deserve more coverage to produce more congestion on the broadcast band? Definitely nope!

Go set up an Internet stream. You'll cover a lot more than even a proposed part 15 increase.

 

[N1WVQ]

That is ridiculous. A- That there is an association of part 15 hobbyists. B-That they seriously think the FCC would consider altering the limitations to Part 15 regulations. LPFM was supposed to be a cure for radio wannabee's, including reduction in pirate's. Has it stopped Pirates? Nope. Do part 15 hobbyists deserve more coverage to produce more congestion on the broadcast band? Definitely nope!

Go set up an Internet stream. You'll cover a lot more than even a proposed part 15 increase.

Never will I do this for a streaming music station (talk on the other hand, sure!). I refuse to pay a "performance" fee for streaming. Web stations should get the same deal radio stations do, as in both cases the "station" is promoting the song by playing it. Fair is fair (this is not a slam against radio, but instead against the damnable DMCA regulations, which should be stripped, and the RIAA).

I am all in favor of expanding F.M. down to 76 MHz & think the band should be 76-108MHz worldwide, akin to how A.M. was 525-1605 worldwide (ITU Region 2 & Australia are the only places I can think of right now that go up to 1705kHz).

I would like to see the following:
Same 200 kHz steps (XX.1, XX.3, XX.5, XX.7, XX.9 MHz)
76-77MHz: 1 watt T.P.O. (to protect the users of the 72-76MHz band), no callsign.
77-78MHz: 10 watts E.R.P..
78-79MHz: 100 watts E.R.P..
79-80MHz: 1kW E.R.P..
80-84MHz: Up to a full class A (6kW @ 328' or equivalent).
84-88MHz: Up to a full class B (50kW @ 492') /C (100kW @ 1,968').

 

[N1WVQ]

Does anyone know which form to fill out for an experimental broadcast license? I know 308 would be for experimental transmissions other than broadcast but I am not sure if it also covers broadcasting. Also, how much it would be? Is experimental broadcasting covered under Part 5? Thanks!

 

[TheBigA]

Web stations should get the same deal radio stations do, as in both cases the "station" is promoting the song by playing it.

The issue isn't promoting the song. The issue is digital vs. analog. Digital transmission makes CD-quality copies available to the public, allowing them to bypass buying the music. That's what has happened. The royalty was based on the old cassette tax instituted 30 years ago.

 

[b-turner]

Should there be any reserved band for non-commercial? Should translators be allowed? For low wattage designations (100 and below in ERP) be altered for geographic circumstances where population density is very low?

 

[CTListener]

The issue isn't promoting the song. The issue is digital vs. analog. Digital transmission makes CD-quality copies available to the public, allowing them to bypass buying the music. That's what has happened. The royalty was based on the old cassette tax instituted 30 years ago.

What if a streaming music station were to talk over or play a jingle over every intro, talk over the end of songs that end cold, and prematurely fade the ones that fade? What if every streaming station decided to do this? The copies anyone would make from those stations would be useless. Think that might change the rules?

 

[TheBigA]

Think that might change the rules?

No. Digital is digital. Talking over it doesn't change a thing.

 

[ContinuousWave]

I am all in favor of expanding F.M. down to 76 MHz & think the band should be 76-108MHz worldwide, akin to how A.M. was 525-1605 worldwide (ITU Region 2 & Australia are the only places I can think of right now that go up to 1705kHz).

This is a moot point.NOT gonna happen in the US....likely TV 2 - 6 will return with ATSC V3.....and the eventual repack of the UHF spectrum due to the sell off to cell carriers...
As to the FM band being 76-108 world wide, forget that as well...never will happen..

DE Whiskey Five Alpha Papa Xray