joebtsflk1 said:
I was going to say that these big city class B FMs would be better served if they could assume C1 equivalent facilities and 60 dBu service contours instead of 54 dBu, which of course they can't under the present rules and considerable short-spacing examples.
We might not ever see TV channel 6 get repurposed for radio, but we might just see repacking of the current FM band to allow co-located full-power FMs to be on 3rd adjacents, rather than 4th adjacents as we have now.
2 thoughts here:
1.) When the the FM spacings were proposed, the receiver designs available were not selective enough for closer spacing. Now, it's too late in most markets. 94.7 and 105.9 in New York are the only frequencies available in the commercial band available to test the current designs. I used to equate the Sensitivity vs. selectivity problem in radios as similar to car engine designs between gas mileage vs. exhaust waste.
2.) There is a de-facto "repurposing" of Channels 6 occuring. I don't see the FCC actively targeting the elimination of FM Stereo 87.7. Unless there are complaints of interference - and I think that is where the ruling will eventually get pushed - the FCC members will kick the can toward the next group of commisioners.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!