Historic Point Reached

[Mike Walker]

I agree with your point RF...the FCC decided all of this years ago. They ruled that there would be no new frequencies. Period. But about your question "would you have a tv station in the middle of a radio band", I'd point out that for the past 60 years we've had a RADIO BAND (FM) in the middle of a tv band (between VHF channels 6 and 7)

 

[R.F. Burns]

Not really. All channel 6 and channel 7 have in common are the channel numbers. One channel is below the FM broadcast band and the other is well above FM and the air band, 2 meters & VHF commercial 2 ways frequencies. Now if you put FM on say channel 3 that would be in the middle of the VHF TV band.

 

[Mike Walker]

Oh come on...channel 6 is on one side of it (in fact you can frequently hear chanel 6 audio on an fm tuner...that's how close it is!), and channel 7 on the other (with some stuff in between). Sounds like the MIDDLE to me.

 

[raydofan]

Not really. All channel 6 and channel 7 have in common are the channel numbers. One channel is below the FM broadcast band and the other is well above FM and the air band, 2 meters & VHF commercial 2 ways frequencies. Now if you put FM on say channel 3 that would be in the middle of the VHF TV band.

Let's put it this way: Analog TV takes up 6 mHz of bandspace for Visual and Aural transmission. If dealing with just VHF, that is 12 portions of 6 mHz, or 7 times the size of the FM band. All areas of the country have at least some of these frequencies available, even with DTV and other ancillary services:

Channel Lower edge Video carrier (MHz) ATSC carrier Audio carrier Upper edge


2 54 55.25 55.31 59.75 60
3 60 61.25 61.31 65.75 66
4 66 67.25 67.31 71.75 72

5 76 77.25 77.31 81.75 82
6 82 83.25 83.31 87.75 88

7 174 175.25 175.31 179.75 180
8 180 181.25 181.31 185.75 186
9 186 187.25 187.31 191.75 192
10 192 193.25 193.31 197.75 198
11 198 199.25 199.31 203.75 204
12 204 205.25 205.31 209.75 210
13 210 211.25 211.31 215.75 216

If, in fact, all the VHF-lo band is vacated when digital TV rolls out, what are the issues? What entities use non-TV assigned frequencies that are currently in the channel 2-6 spectrum?

I have observed other occupants in the 174-216 range-like paging services-any others?

Where will the not-yet-vacated spectrum go?

 

[Mike Walker]

The FCC has said they'll auction the spectrum to the highest bidder. They can do THAT, but couldn't supply a separate band for digital broadcasting. Your tax dollars in action!

 

[raydofan]

The FCC has said they'll auction the spectrum to the highest bidder. They can do THAT, but couldn't supply a separate band for digital broadcasting. Your tax dollars in action!

That could be anyone, really...so who's to say a radio company (or a consortium) will land spectrum?

Agreed that this should be assigned, and current AMs simulcast/migrated in digital.

 

[Mike Walker]

I think FM stations looking for programming to fill those HD channels without breaking the bank, and AMs looking for reliable terrestrial digital distribution should get to know one another. And if you're a group, with AMs down the hall, what the heck are you thinking by not piggybacking them on the HD services of your FMs?

 

[raydofan]

And if you're a group, with AMs down the hall, what the heck are you thinking by not piggybacking them on the HD services of your FMs?

Really, that is so simple it won't happen soon enough. If it is, I haven't heard about it.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I think FM stations looking for programming to fill those HD channels without breaking the bank, and AMs looking for reliable terrestrial digital distribution should get to know one another. And if you're a group, with AMs down the hall, what the heck are you thinking by not piggybacking them on the HD services of your FMs?

In NY Both WNYC AM and WINS are running as HD 3 channels.

 

[davideduardo]

And if you're a group, with AMs down the hall, what the heck are you thinking by not piggybacking them on the HD services of your FMs?

Really, that is so simple it won't happen soon enough. If it is, I haven't heard about it.

KTNQ (AM) is on the HD2 channel of KLVE. Has been for nearly a year. This makes up for the noisy analog AM environment of AM in LA, where even 50 kw KTNQ does not fully cover all the market geography, particularly at night.

 

[Mike Walker]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

 

[PocketRadio]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

"KSL still No. 1 in ratings, but lead is dwindling"

"Remember the huge lead KSL (AM-1160/FM-102.7) had after simulcasting on FM? That's gone, and although the station holds No. 1 firmly, its outrageous advantage has vanished."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060127/ai_n16039849

Radio is in such a sad-state, that simulcasting/streaming AM on FM makes no difference.

 

[davideduardo]

"KSL still No. 1 in ratings, but lead is dwindling"

The increases of other stations are irrelevant commercially. Rates are based on each station's individual audience delivery in AQH persons or rating (which are really the same thing). The last trend had KLS AM&FM at the high end of its last 15 months' ratings. The combo is exactly 60% ahead of the #2 station in 12+, in fact.

"Remember the huge lead KSL (AM-1160/FM-102.7) had after simulcasting on FM? That's gone, and although the station holds No. 1 firmly, its outrageous advantage has vanished."

That's not true. See above. The advantage is bigger than ever in the near-past time frame.

Radio is in such a sad-state, that simulcasting/streaming AM on FM makes no difference.

The FM simulcast moved KSL up into the top 5 in 25-54, where it had not been performing nearly as well prior to the simulcast in those key demos... and that is the reason for the the simulcast. Radio listening in the KSL demos is not off, is not in a sad state, and actually quite consistent with the history of the last 20 years.

Streaming has no positive contribution to ratings and bringing the subject into this discussion is major irrelevancy.

 

[davideduardo]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

AM stations that have such marginal signals ("barely [if at all] cover their metro with an analog signal") are not competing even now. The "usable" signal for metro area AMs is now around 10 mv/m or greater due to analog noise levels. In most cases, the HD signal does as well as or better than that.

The real issue with AM is that most Top 100 markets have only a couple of viable signals. In quite a few, there are no viable stations on AM such as Washington, DC, for example...

 

[PocketRadio]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

AM stations that have such marginal signals ("barely [if at all] cover their metro with an analog signal") are not competing even now. The "usable" signal for metro area AMs is now around 10 mv/m or greater due to analog noise levels. In most cases, the HD signal does as well as or better than that.

The real issue with AM is that most Top 100 markets have only a couple of viable signals. In quite a few, there are no viable stations on AM such as Washington, DC, for example...

WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm

This is just a sampling of 50KW AMs ranked #1, or in the top-5. AM-HD causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog. Terrestrial radio's TSL is declining and radio has no future:

"FOLLOW-UP EDISON MEDIA RESEARCH STUDY ON 12-24 RADIO LISTENING SHOWS SHARP DECREASES IN TSL AND USAGE"

"A new study by Edison Media Research shows sharp declines in Time Spent Listening (TSL), Persons Using Radio (PUR) and most importantly attitudes about radio among the 12-to-24-age group, the listeners who represent both terrestrial radio's future and its greatest challenge."

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2006/09/followup_edison.php

 

[R.F. Burns]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

AM stations that have such marginal signals ("barely [if at all] cover their metro with an analog signal") are not competing even now. The "usable" signal for metro area AMs is now around 10 mv/m or greater due to analog noise levels. In most cases, the HD signal does as well as or better than that.

The real issue with AM is that most Top 100 markets have only a couple of viable signals. In quite a few, there are no viable stations on AM such as Washington, DC, for example...

WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm

This is just a sampling of 50KW AMs ranked #1, or in the top-5. AM-HD causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog. Terrestrial radio's TSL is declining and radio has no future:

"FOLLOW-UP EDISON MEDIA RESEARCH STUDY ON 12-24 RADIO LISTENING SHOWS SHARP DECREASES IN TSL AND USAGE"

"A new study by Edison Media Research shows sharp declines in Time Spent Listening (TSL), Persons Using Radio (PUR) and most importantly attitudes about radio among the 12-to-24-age group, the listeners who represent both terrestrial radio's future and its greatest challenge."

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2006/09/followup_edison.php

Nice list. Here's a question for you to investigate. What are the demographic breakdowns of each station. I'll bet it's all 45 plus and that each one is harder to sell then the rock station that the 20 year olds listen to. Again, it isn't only the numbers, it's what the numbers are. When I was younger I'd listen to the radio to hear the latest songs. How is it done today? Oh that's right, the recording industry is in serious trouble, just ask those ex Tower records employees. Wonder if there's a tie in somewhere?

 

[clouseau]

It's good to know that a few are doing it. Even assuming there are no problems with AM HD, many AM stations aren't "flamethrowers". They barely (if at all) cover their metro with an analog signal. These guys will NEVER cover the entire metro with a digital signal...especially at night. Relationships with FMs make a lot of sense!

AM stations that have such marginal signals ("barely [if at all] cover their metro with an analog signal") are not competing even now. The "usable" signal for metro area AMs is now around 10 mv/m or greater due to analog noise levels. In most cases, the HD signal does as well as or better than that.

The real issue with AM is that most Top 100 markets have only a couple of viable signals. In quite a few, there are no viable stations on AM such as Washington, DC, for example...

WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6
WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8
WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2
WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4
WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6
WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8
WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3
WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3
KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4
KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm

This is just a sampling of 50KW AMs ranked #1, or in the top-5. AM-HD causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog. Terrestrial radio's TSL is declining and radio has no future:

"FOLLOW-UP EDISON MEDIA RESEARCH STUDY ON 12-24 RADIO LISTENING SHOWS SHARP DECREASES IN TSL AND USAGE"

"A new study by Edison Media Research shows sharp declines in Time Spent Listening (TSL), Persons Using Radio (PUR) and most importantly attitudes about radio among the 12-to-24-age group, the listeners who represent both terrestrial radio's future and its greatest challenge."

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2006/09/followup_edison.php

Ok, I guess I just don't get it, Pocket. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
David posted....

The real issue with AM is that most Top 100 markets have only a couple of viable signals. In quite a few, there are no viable stations on AM such as Washington, DC, for example...

You answered with a list of 50 KW AM's. All but one city is "One to a market". Chicago has 2. (Your WLS "12+ Top 5" claim aside). Doesn't the list DEMONSTRATE the original point?

The assertion was...

AM stations that have such marginal signals ("barely [if at all] cover their metro with an analog signal") are not competing even now. The "usable" signal for metro area AMs is now around 10 mv/m or greater due to analog noise levels. In most cases, the HD signal does as well as or better than that.

Does your "One to a city" list do anything but support that claim?

And another thing. This "Declilning TSL in 12-24 year olds" research that does not even MENTION HD radio should be posted "somewhere where there is less light", if you get my meaning. Radio-Info is a wonderful resource to discuss MANY topics and there is a plethora of boards available for your griping and bitching in general about radio programming. If you note in the header this is the "HD board." Your link, which does not even MENTION HD Radio, is off topic.

May I suggest you post you "Research" in a more appropriate forum.

Thanks

Clouseau