For those of you that think FM IBOC has no hash on the adjacents

[RadioFixerCLE]

I can tell you that on nights when the skywave is really active, the first-adjacent noise from WBZ is unbelievable. It's hard to justify wasting electricity leaving WYSL's transmitter on; nobody could be listening unless they're within a mile of the array.

A lot of AM stations -- including WYSL -- shouldn't have been given night-time authorization in the first place. It just resulted in more congestion and increased noise; which is what requiring these stations to sign off at dusk was designed to alleviate.

Sorry, this is not meant as a slam against your station, Bob.

 

[Savage]

"Not meant as a slam against my station!" (You bet.)

Reminds me of the old joke about the goombah that says to one of his buds in school: "Now, don' take dis the wrong way, okay? Your sister's a f**king slut. Wit all due respect, okay??"

I guess your comment would have some validity in a thread or on a board entitled Regulatory Missteps of the FCC Over The Past 20 Years. However I think the subject under discussion was how, or whether, HD Radio can have any impact when it's increasingly evident that the IBOC system creates objectionable interference. And not just to WYSL...to many stations, AM and FM. It wasn't whether WYSL has a right to exist. And I think a lot of listener residents of this market, in view of ten years of valuable WYSL night coverage dealing with everything from blizzards to basketball, would take emphatic exception to your blithe and obnoxious comment that all we do is create "more congestion and increased noise."

"With All Due Respect," your comment exemplifies the kind of attitude that sparks a lot of resentment regarding IBOC. The system pits one broadcaster, in defense of his livelihood, against another - the big guns playing their In Band Other Channel science-fair project to a tiny minority of enthusiasts on one hand, and a hugely indifferent listening public on the other. It's a nasty little no-talent band playing stiffs to an empty stadium, at someone else's expense.

No offense, of course.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

"With All Due Respect," your comment exemplifies the kind of attitude that sparks a lot of resentment regarding IBOC. The system pits one broadcaster, in defense of his livelihood, against another - the big guns playing their In Band Other Channel science-fair project to a tiny minority of enthusiasts on one hand, and a hugely indifferent listening public on the other. It's a nasty little no-talent band playing stiffs to an empty stadium, at someone else's expense.

OK....so that's how we're going to play it. First, the obligatory disclaimer: I do not support the IBOC HD-Radio system.

You yourself said that it's a waste of electricity running at night. So why don't you just call it a day and shut the station down after dusk? Or better yet, concentrate on serving your COMMUNITY OF LICENCE -- Avon, NY -- instead of trying to go up against the Rochester stations.

What were you expecting to get with only 500 watts at night, already shoe-horned next to a clearchannel to begin with -- not to mention the mess that is 1050 from Toronto and New York. Did you honestly expect to get significant amounts of listeners in the CITY of Rochester?

If you want to play in Rochester, move the transmitter into the city and offer some compelling programming as opposed to being just another clearinghouse for syndicated right-wing dingbats and TV news simulcasts. Then you might stand a chance. It would be akin to me buying WNYG in Babylon and trying to grab listeners in New York City!!

Bob Bittner on the other hand covers the entire city of Cambridge and part of Boston. But then again, he is not an out of town station purporting to be a "Boston station". He is serving his community of licence, which are those two cities, not a town that's over 20 miles away.

I've always jonesed for a top-of-the-dial "graveyard" station like WNYG. But you can bet your ass that I wouldn't bother running it after sundown with reduced power. Why? The signal only gets trashed a few miles from the tower. What's the point?

It's a totally different story from running the same low power both day & night ...or drop down to MAYBE about half the power, where the station already had original night-time authorization.

I also wouldn't bother running a station that boasts 20,000 daytime and only 500 watts at night, unless I were to only concentrate my service to the immediate community I'm licenced for. Ditto the 1,000 watt daytime powerhouses that crank down to 38 watts at night -- hello WNYG. :

 

[Savage]

Well, I guess that IS the way we're going to play it, if you insist on making inflammatory and arrogant public statements about someone else's livelihood.

Your ignorance of the WYSL-WBZ interference situation is palpable. Before pontificating about how WYSL should serve its community (and "forget" Rochester) perhaps you might take time to read our FCC complaints. Oh, wait: you don't even have to exert that tiny effort to inform yourself!! Just go back and read Reply 38, conveniently posted on this thread for your reference! If would do so, you would learn: WBZ's IBOC hash is invading our NIF of 13.687 mv/v so badly WE AREN'T EVEN REACHING OUR COMMUNITY OF LICENSE you lecture me about "serving." In fact WBZ is rendering a night signal strength of 27.6 mv, over TWICE our NIF, unusable to any typical listener.

BTW - Bob Bittner is an old friend. He feels the same way about HD-AM I do, and I'm quite familiar with his two operations, thank you.

Just acting on a hunch here: you get a paycheck from someone else every week, like clockwork, whether IBOC is trashing your station or not, right? Steph, have you ever met payroll regularly, say...weekly for over 20 years? For a month? Or even a couple of weeks? My bet is: NOPE.

So have a little respect for someone who runs a radio station profitably and responsibly, and for the massive regulatory HD Radio special-interest boondoggle and the problems it presents. When you've ridden in this boat for a mile or two then tell me how to run my business.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

You're claiming interference at NIGHT -- for a station that was never meant to broadcast at night! Hell, I'm surprised you're not bitching about the interference from WHO in Des Moines, the station that you were supposed to protect by going off at night.

Riddle me this: Are you getting any HD interference in your COL from WBZ during the DAYTIME? I would think not -- especially with 20Kw of power behind you.

Either learn to live with the night time interference like those of us at WGBB or WNYG do, or, better yet, just shut the damned rig off like it was supposed to do when WYSL was originally licenced.

 

[Len14043]

Stephanie, Mr. Savage and myself disagree on the merits of IBOC - at least as far as FM is concerned. However, you put me in the unenviable position of defending him. First of all, the FCC authorized him and many other stations to operate on formerly clear channels. As a dxer, I didn't like it. However, I understand that one station occupying one frequency was a waste of spectrum. Seriously, how many listeners do you think KSL has east of the Mississippi?, or WHAM west of the Mississippi? Mr. Savage was merely playing by the rules and has a right to exist - pure and simple. Regarding your comment about right-wing dingbats, should he carry the left-wing dingbats and fold like Air America? Like it or not, right wing radio sells and Rush Limbaugh single handedly delayed the collapse of AM radio.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

Len, I agree with you regarding my comment about the rightwing dingbats. I am out of line on that one.

However, I stand by my original statement: WYSL should expect this kind of noise on their signal at night - not just from HD, but from the crowded dial that these night-time applications themselves caused.

What I don't understand is, how can WYSL complain about WBZ trashing its nighttime signal, when in an RF-noise polluted city like mine, I can receive kilo-watter WNYC on AM 82 at night - without any IBOC hash from ...say....WCCO-83 in Minneapolis or better yet, WGY-81 from Schenectady, NY?

 

[Chuck]

However, I stand by my original statement: WYSL should expect this kind of noise on their signal at night - not just from HD, but from the crowded dial that these night-time applications themselves caused.

It would seem that the night time applications, however ill advised they may have been, were granted by the FCC. Further it would seem that until IBOC came along they actually worked "well enough." Now they don't. It seems pretty simple to me.

Once granted, it is very difficult to revoke a privilege. I wish Bob well in regaining what he has lost.

 

[orange434]

Really? No imaging? No imagination? I've read several reviews of HD2 stations that would disagree with you. I happen to know that's not the case with several stations, and pretty much all of the CC Format Lab channels.

And again, how would anyone know what the multicast channels provide? Or for that matter, how much effort is put into the channels prior to buying a radio?

because i have an hd radio and have listened to the multicast channels in my area and all of them are 100% garbage. the clear channel ones in particular are carbon copied into every market, playlist AND generic liners. plug it in and run it automated 24/7/365. that's garbage. so there are one or two somewhere offer some creativity? big freakin' whoop, 99% of the HD2s and 3s in america offer zero and if that doesn't change nobody will buy the radios.

 

[Len14043]

What I don't understand is, how can WYSL complain about WBZ trashing its nighttime signal, when in an RF-noise polluted city like mine, I can receive kilo-watter WNYC on AM 82 at night - without any IBOC hash from ...say....WCCO-83 in Minneapolis or better yet, WGY-81 from Schenectady, NY?

I'll check it out when traveling to Upstate NY next month. In Ohio, WBZ and WHO engage in mutual destruction but each occasionally locks in. Are stations like WYSL protected at night at a given signal strenght level, or are they allowed to operate at night with an understanding that they are not protected at any level?

 

[Tom Wells]

All the stations whose newer presence is being questioned could be lamented from the dxer's viewpoint, but we seem to be agreed that these stations have established a more meaningful service in the areas than the former skywave.

They were reviewed and approved and are water under the bridge.
I miss my old choices lost, but it was still all working well enough.
All the new stations still had to conform to good engineering standards, often at much higher expense in order
to achieve useful yet protecting pattern.
And a high cost to maintain this critical operation.

Then a computer company is given permission to run a mode of modulation that is as bad as the worst splattered, widebanded FM-ing,
CBer ya ever heard, on AM where you can't hide anything 'cept maybe narrowband FM.
Really, we're back to try to hear over the equivalent of a small unquenched spark transmitter.
The wide-banded arc modulation was BANNED as being too wideband way, way back.

Anyway those who had to take the former good engineering standards VERY seriously to ever obtain a license
would seem to have the very first rights to complain about operation that clearly disregards the license
by changing the rules of the game.

You've seen it, blah blah Act of 1934, as ammended. It's always there in every law or edict by the FCC.
They make it up as they go, it says so right there.

As it was working well enough, maybe could have stood a re-plan for locals/regionals/clears, AM sure
didn't need something that kicked every tenet of good AM engineering and operation practice in the teeth.
At least as far as the sound result goes for all the regular AM radios.

The iboc FM hiss in stereo on the host is small enough for me to disregard. I can hear it if I try, but it's not intrusive
nor particularly noticable.
I have few "adjacent" channel FM choice here in northside Chicago.

 

[Savage]

Unfortunately it is necessary to again publicly correct someone who has decided to deride our radio station on this board when the subject is HD-AM and the harmful interference it generates. That person would be StephanieNYC.

She is apparently unaware that WYSL is.....ready? AN UNLIMITED-HOURS AUTHORIZATION. Obviously she thinks WYSL is a "daytimer." It is NOT. The station is a DA-3, not a DA-D, and thus your braying at me that "WYSL should turn off its transmitter at night as intended" is completely without merit. In fact, as a U authorization we are REQUIRED to be on at night. We have protected contours, even from 50kw clears, day, night and critical hours. Also she is obviously misinformed about the FCC protection limits. Every authorized AM is protected to its daytime 0.5. WYSL is likewise protected to its nighttime 13.687, a high limit obviously, but a limit nonetheless. WBZ's HD interferes with us in contravention of the rules in all three antenna modes.

Another poster here has noted StephanieNYC's real agenda: she has a problem with WYSL which has nothing to do with HD interference. She, like others of her political persuasion, wants to silence people who disagree with her. The completely irrelevant blasts at WYSL programming are telling for anyone willing to pay attention.

Before pontificating about our operation and the real world of AM interference, get the facts and know what you're talking about.

 

[Savage]

Len, I'm sorry you feel that defending WYSL puts you in "an unenviable position."

If you're near WYSL in your Upstate travels I invite you to stop by for a tour of our 13.5 acre transmitter-studio-office site. We're quite proud of it. Give me a call first so I know you're coming.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

She is apparently unaware that WYSL is.....ready? AN UNLIMITED-HOURS AUTHORIZATION. Obviously she thinks WYSL is a "daytimer." It is NOT. The station is a DA-3, not a DA-D, and thus your braying at me that "WYSL should turn off its transmitter at night as intended"

Your station, as originally founded, was a daytimer. There was a reason for that.

Another poster here has noted StephanieNYC's real agenda: she has a problem with WYSL which has nothing to do with HD interference. She, like others of her political persuasion, wants to silence people who disagree with her. [/quote}

You have no idea about my political persuasions. And I already admitted that I am totally out of line with that comment.

The main programming problem I do have with WYSL (which is the same problem I have with many suburban stations) is that it positions itself as a Rochester station, when in fact, it isn't.

 

[Savage]

Nice try.

Yes, WYSL was a daytimer - on 1030, not 1040.

We moved pursuant to a major change which we duly filed for and were granted in 1994. The new facility was built 1996-1997, and we have been serving the region with our UNLIMITED authorization since that time.
The daytime-only 1030 authorization was of course surrendered when we started UNLIMITED HOURS operation on our new frequency.

If you admit you were "out of line" with your comments, you might also consider admitting that you know nothing about WYSL programming. Have you ever listened (on-line) ? If you bothered, you'd know that your demeaning comments about WYSL local news limited to News 10 NBC simulcasts and "right-wing dingbat" talk are baseless, nasty and unfair.

Why would you care whether WYSL or any other station "positions itself" as being associated with a major metropolitan city when it's licensed to a suburb? What the hell's the difference? Like any other station, WYSL seeks advertising revenue and audience where it can be found. The COL concept is a legal fiction wholly a creation of the FCC and dating from the 1930s. You're twisting yourself into a logical pretzel trying to justify your unwarranted, factually flawed attack on WYSL.

The subject, StephanieNYC, is HD radio and the interference it creates. Not equating WYSL with a one-kilowatt Long Island daytimer on regional frequency 1440 and why it doesn't try to serve the Greater New York SMSA with 38 watts NDA post-sunset. There is absolutely no similarity between the two situations.

Care to consider retracting some of your statements and maybe offering an apology?

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

We moved pursuant to a major change which we duly filed for and were granted in 1994. The new facility was built 1996-1997, and we have been serving the region with our UNLIMITED authorization since that time.
The daytime-only 1030 authorization was of course surrendered when we started UNLIMITED HOURS operation on our new frequency.

If 500 watts wasn't going to be "good enough" for you, why did you bother building the station in the first place?

If you admit you were "out of line" with your comments, you might also consider admitting that you know nothing about WYSL programming. Have you ever listened (on-line) ? If you bothered, you'd know that your demeaning comments about WYSL local news limited to News 10 NBC simulcasts and "right-wing dingbat" talk are baseless, nasty and unfair.

I'm sorry, I have no respect for a station that positions itself as "News 1040" and "News Power" when its newsblock consists of a TV simulcast. Who are you fooling? Do you really think people seek out your station for local news? Hell no. That's what WHAM 1180 is there for! The weekend programming seems to mirror the insipidness on WHAM - vanity and paid programming.

And lest you think that I'm slamming small local stations, I also have no respect for WCBS-88 simulcasting Katy Couric and 60 minutes on the weekend -- and this is a major market ALL NEWS station!!

Why would you care whether WYSL or any other station "positions itself" as being associated with a major metropolitan city when it's licensed to a suburb? What the hell's the difference? Like any other station, WYSL seeks advertising revenue and audience where it can be found. The COL concept is a legal fiction wholly a creation of the FCC and dating from the 1930s. You're twisting yourself into a logical pretzel trying to justify your unwarranted, factually flawed attack on WYSL.

It's simple greed on your end. You got greedy. 500 watts wasn't good enough. Daytime wasn't good enough. Oh no, you had to try and play with the big boys in the big city. If you found out you couldn't make money by serving Avon and environs, again, why did you bother building the station?

Care to consider retracting some of your statements and maybe offering an apology?

I'd be really interested in taking a drive around Avon at night while listening to your station. Then, if I screwed up, I will take back what I said.

Something must be terribly wrong when your station gets trashed by a distant clear channel signal, and a similar station here in New York City doesn't get slammed by two (one adj channel and one on-channel) flamethrowers with IBOC at night. ???

 

[Savage]

Okay, one more reply - then we'll just let your obvious and total contempt for WYSL remain to make its lasting impression on any reasonably-minded reader.

500 watts at night DID work. And it worked fine, for over ten years, until IBOC from WBZ came along. In case you missed it, that's the whole issue here.

You "have no respect" for our station, about which you know essentially nothing, or its people, whom you have never met? That's obvious.

You accuse us of being greedy? Why, because we don't want to lose money? Or do you have that twisted anti-American liberal perspective that any kind of profit from any business enterprise, no matter how modest or honestly earned, is inherently evil? Yep, we've made money every year since upgrading from a money-bleeding daytimer to fulltime operation, and we'd like to continue doing so for the benefit of our staffers, our listeners and our community. Only in the world of StephanieNYC is that a BAD thing.

So you're going to come up here and "drive around Avon" and evaluate the merits of our IBOC interference complaint in an honest and objective fashion? Pardon me while I don't hold my breath.

You declare you can't understand our interference complaints, while equating WYSL-WBZ with some nonspecific adjacent-channel situation in your home market. You know perfectly well that each IBOC interference situation is unique. You "can't understand" because you're not interested in the facts.

I have had numerous productive, civil exchanges on this board with several posters who disagree strongly with me re: HD Radio - among them Radioman 100, Clouseau and RF Burns. We're all able to joust, have a little fun and learn from each other, or so I would like to think.

Prior to this unfortunate exchange there have been two posters here which I ignore no matter what they write. Now there are three.

 

[Radioman100]

The subject, StephanieNYC, is HD radio and the interference it creates.

Maybe I missed something, but I think the point Stephanie is making has something to do with the fact that the most visible anti-IBOC person on Earth (except maybe the nutjob in Maryland that lives to post links) operates a station that while legal, and blessed by the FCC creates interference that didn't exist before that station's inception. Understand, I'm not saying it's wrong for you to operate WYSL at all. You got the authorization.

That's what I've always found interesting about this. You use the argument that what you did in creating WYSL is perfectly fine because the FCC said so, yet the FCC has also given the nod to IBOC, and WBZ is doing nothing illegal by running it.

They may in fact be interfering. But they're not doing anything the Commission didn't approve.

 

[Len14043]

WBZ has a null toward the east and concentrates all of their power to the west. Maybe an engineer can help me out here, but my understanding is that they transmit the equivalent of 100,000 watts to the west, i.e. toward WYSL. If that is the case, would that increase the digital power in that direction too? When I was in Illinois, WBZ occasionally clobbered WHO.This was about 800 miles from Boston and 200 miles from Des Moines.

Stephanie, your apology about right-wing dingbats is graciously accepted.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

You accuse us of being greedy? Why, because we don't want to lose money? Or do you have that twisted anti-American liberal perspective that any kind of profit from any business enterprise, no matter how modest or honestly earned, is inherently evil? Yep, we've made money every year since upgrading from a money-bleeding daytimer to fulltime operation, and we'd like to continue doing so for the benefit of our staffers, our listeners and our community. Only in the world of StephanieNYC is that a BAD thing.

Where do you get off on saying I'm a "liberal"? As a fairly conservative businessman (financial, not social), I would never have established a "money bleeding daytimer" in the first place. I would have invested in an existing facility with a satisfactory signal, or built a full powered signal to begin with, maybe not in Rochester.

So you're going to come up here and "drive around Avon" and evaluate the merits of our IBOC interference complaint in an honest and objective fashion? Pardon me while I don't hold my breath.

I'm quite capable of being objective. I don't really care for whatever garbage any station, including yours, chooses to broadcast -- I only care about the technical side of things. Hell, I'd gladly babysit a Radio Disney repeater if you paid me.

Let's bring up an example. WOR was one of the best-sounding analog stations in the early 90s. Most of their programming wasn't to my taste, but who cares, the station sounded nice. I will admit the analog signal went to pot after IBOC came on, but having LISTENED to the digital side of things (I own an HD radio), I have to admit the digital signal sounds just as good, if not a bit better, than 1990s-era WOR.

I still don't care for most of that station's programming (and Tom Ray knows it), but I will say that WOR is the only AM station here in New York that has implemented the technology correctly.

AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IBOC. I just give credit where it's due. It's like...I don't care for compact disks -- I prefer normal records -- but if someone asked me if CDs sounded good, I'd have to answer yes (as long as the disks are properly made, obviously).



If I go to Avon and find that your signal is trashed, I will not hesitate in telling you that it's trashed. If it sounds fine to me, I will tell you that it sounds fine to me. Hell, I'd be willing to drive around with YOU in YOUR car, with your radio to see what's going on.

Prior to this unfortunate exchange there have been two posters here which I ignore no matter what they write. Now there are three

I'm sorry you feel that way. I do honestly sympathise with your situation, but I'm also pretty sure that if WBZ were stepping on your turf, their engineers would do an honest effort to correct the situation. As a station owner, I'd also be pissed off if someone were stepping all over my primary COL contour.