IS HD the way to go for AM PHILLY STATIONS?

[JH_Radio]

Remember the lessons learned from the analog to digital TV transition. Radio would be worse.

What lessens were learned from switching from analog TV to DTV ?
I dont get channel 6 from Bensalem with DTV very well. Try unless the antenna is placed just so, it doesn't come in.
I'd need to hook the converter to my outdoor antenna I think

 

[joshzz]

If radio stations were required to switch to HD, is there some way to expand the band so there is no interference?

 

[amfmsw]

It's not the band, it's the modulation technique: Amplitude vs. Frequency Modulation, allowing manmade static to enter easily. The low frequency, 540-1700Khz doesn't allow enough room to use FM on that band well. It's physics.

And not far after 1.7Mhz, I believe you're entering other reserved bands, The International Treaties for Short Wave, then 27Mhz for CB, the the old "Business Band", "Public Service Band".

Anything past 1700 is a lot of skywave and wierd stuff.

Now, BELOW 540..the old Marine Band...THAT's interesting territory! A 500 watt station at 400Kc would cover enourmous real estate. But you would need that for the required antenna.

 

[joshzz]

A solution for HD?? First, expand the FM Band. Then move all AM stations to the new expanded FM band. Finally, allow for fair proportional increase in HD power for all stations. The answer? Your thoughts?

 

[klutch00]

A solution for HD?? First, expand the FM Band. Then move all AM stations to the new expanded FM band. Finally, allow for fair proportional increase in HD power for all stations. The answer? Your thoughts?

I don't like the idea of shutting down AM completely! I DO think the band needs an overhaul, but if there's going to be a solution to this dilemma, I feel that AM should consist mostly of Clear Channels with maybe a few regionals and locals. I say expand FM another sixty channels. It could be up to 114 MHz or delete channel six and go down to 82 MHz. Move the stations to the new expanded band with the most compromised signals. Allow some of the new channels in the expanded band to accept stations with 100-kilowatts ERP nationwide. With additional clear channels, try to allow each state to have at least one clear channel station.

 

[amfmsw]

Jay W's comments are interesting, as that is the problem here at the Jersey Shore. Not ONE HD signal, makes the trip on my Boston Acoustics radio. I'll get the indicator, AM & FM, but no lock. Wall-to-wall stations with a dipole. Why would I make another investment?

klutch: You CANNOT just expand the band that easy. First, several cities' Channel 6's never relinquished that real estate. Philadelphia for one. WPVI insisted they stay on Ch 6 HD when converting. Not the brightest move technically, as it does not carry the data very well. KYW Ch3 got smart and moved to UHF and got much better coverage. So although the analog WPVI audio many so dearly loved at 88FM (87.75) in our cars for News is missing, the channel is clogged and not available for FM expansion in this region.

ABOVE 108Mc: YO! That's VHF Air Traffic Control, Marine-Ship-to-Shore, Coast Guard and other Public Service bands. All that RF Real estate is spoken for.

 

[Tom Wells]

By not focusing immediately on the souces of noise, the other measures being discussed are
like putting makeup on a corpse.
The same interference that makes analog reception suffer also will stop digital decode.

If FM hadn't been allowed (designed) to deviate over such an obscenely wide bandwidth, there wouldn't
be any advantage noise-wise, or the sort of impulse noise rejection FM enjoys.

It's baffling to me that the FCC could simply start fining manufacturers and banning importatation and they don't.

It's would be like the Police and National Guard ignoring looting in a riot that's beeen going on for 40 years.

Maybe it's time to create a completely new agency to regulate radio, one that is primarily staffed by engineers rather
than politicians and policy wranglers.

The current method of pretending manufacturers will comply with the intent of pt 15 unintentional radiator rules
is not working.

I used to listen to KYW up in East Greenville, Macungie, and Fogelsville, and it mostly sounded fine back in the 90s,
even with a windshield antenna rather than a whip.
Thiswas pre-iboc. I can't imagine how it must sound there now.

 

[klutch00]

By not focusing immediately on the sources of noise, the other measures being discussed are
like putting makeup on a corpse.
The same interference that makes analog reception suffer also will stop digital decode.

If FM hadn't been allowed (designed) to deviate over such an obscenely wide bandwidth, there wouldn't
be any advantage noise-wise, or the sort of impulse noise rejection FM enjoys.

It's baffling to me that the FCC could simply start fining manufacturers and banning importation and they don't.

It's would be like the Police and National Guard ignoring looting in a riot that's been going on for 40 years.

Maybe it's time to create a completely new agency to regulate radio, one that is primarily staffed by engineers rather
than politicians and policy wranglers.

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

 

[Tom Wells]

When "someone" leads by the manner of good example, others will recognize the value, and follow with similar action or practice.
If sanitation in hospitals were addressed the way the FCC has treated noise, most patients in the hospital would not survive due to infections.
We would be expected to believe some lie that it's "no one's" fault, and we'd just have to deal with the outcome of unsanitary standards.

 

[klutch00]

Look for AM to be populated by religious, ethnic and brokered-time stations for a few decades before the FCC finds an excuse to shut the band down for broadcasting and use the spectrum space for something else.

You called it Steve.

The niche AM might reasonably fill is in sparsely populated regions, especially those between the Rockies and the Appalachians, where clear channel and regional stations can cover a large territory. Clear out the dead wood on the AM band, all the daytimers and local frequency stations; maybe even let clear channel stations go to super power (like WLW once did). These stations could provide a useful service in under-served area. That's why clear channel stations were set up in the first place. They'd have to forgo satellite and voice tracking and really focus on serving their regions (the way radio stations used to do). Without the kind of interference you find in metro areas, they could put listenable signals. But better do this quick, before somebody decides you can do the same with FM repeaters on one frequency (like they do in Europe).

I wouldn't shut down AM day-timers or smaller operations...yet! I think they can serve a purpose; albeit a niche one. Other than Sports, ethnic and religious programming, why not offer some underground, free-form or other niche format that FM stations won't touch with a 20' pole? Moreover, why not find sources of income other than advertisement to keep those stations on the air?

 

[Jay Walker]

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

As far as neighbors Canada and Mexico, both countries have been actively encouraging AM operators migration to FM. It's been mentioned that over 80% of the AM operations in Mexico have been or are in the process of moving to FM. This includes the high power operations such as XEG, XEROK and XERF all licensed for 100kw plus MW power levels.

 

[klutch00]

You CANNOT just expand the band that easy. First, several cities' Channel 6's never relinquished that real estate. Philadelphia for one. WPVI insisted they stay on Ch 6 HD when converting. Not the brightest move technically, as it does not carry the data very well. KYW Ch3 got smart and moved to UHF and got much better coverage. So although the analog WPVI audio many so dearly loved at 88FM (87.75) in our cars for News is missing, the channel is clogged and not available for FM expansion in this region.

A radical vision I had should 'my plan' ever come to fruition would've been to move all of channel six to a newly created 'Channel 70'. I don't know if that spectrum is now occupied, though.

ABOVE 108Mc: YO! That's VHF Air Traffic Control, Marine-Ship-to-Shore, Coast Guard and other Public Service bands. All that RF Real estate is spoken for.

Now that I wasn't aware of.

 

[klutch00]

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

As far as neighbors Canada and Mexico, both countries have been actively encouraging AM operators migration to FM. It's been mentioned that over 80% of the AM operations in Mexico have been or are in the process of moving to FM. This includes the high power operations such as XEG, XEROK and XERF all licensed for 100kw plus MW power levels.

Well, If Mexico won't use those frequencies anymore, what's the chance that we can get them? If such a plan were ever to come to fruition, allow one of the plains states or eastern Rockies first dibs, with a Gulf state being given a consideration as well.

 

[Jay Walker]

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

As far as neighbors Canada and Mexico, both countries have been actively encouraging AM operators migration to FM. It's been mentioned that over 80% of the AM operations in Mexico have been or are in the process of moving to FM. This includes the high power operations such as XEG, XEROK and XERF all licensed for 100kw plus MW power levels.

Well, If Mexico won't use those frequencies anymore, what's the chance that we can get them? If such a plan were ever to come to fruition, allow one of the plains states or eastern Rockies first dibs, with a Gulf state being given a consideration as well.

While the Mexico and Canadian AM stations are leaving the MW band, they have not and WILL NOT release the allocations to allow US operations to take over said frequencies. There were other threads on the forum about this topic earlier this year, over on the LA board if I remember correctly.

I personally know of several US stations on Mexican Clear Channels who would greatly benefit from a night-time power increase, but so far there is no chance for any upgrades now or in the foreseeable future...

 

[klutch00]

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

As far as neighbors Canada and Mexico, both countries have been actively encouraging AM operators migration to FM. It's been mentioned that over 80% of the AM operations in Mexico have been or are in the process of moving to FM. This includes the high power operations such as XEG, XEROK and XERF all licensed for 100kw plus MW power levels.

Well, If Mexico won't use those frequencies anymore, what's the chance that we can get them? If such a plan were ever to come to fruition, allow one of the plains states or eastern Rockies first dibs, with a Gulf state being given a consideration as well.

While the Mexico and Canadian AM stations are leaving the MW band, they have not and WILL NOT release the allocations to allow US operations to take over said frequencies. There were other threads on the forum about this topic earlier this year, over on the LA board if I remember correctly.

I wasn't able to find that thread. Either way, that's too bad if it's the case.

I personally know of several US stations on Mexican Clear Channels who would greatly benefit from a night-time power increase, but so far there is no chance for any upgrades now or in the foreseeable future...

I suppose there's a lot of red tape that goes along with all of this! My attitude: why let a channel go unused when someone could put it to good use? I feel there should be a 'use or lose' policy when it comes to that kind of 'stuff'!

 

[Jay Walker]

Excellent points!!! I couldn't agree more!!! The trick is how do we resolve differences with our neighbors to the north and south of us?

As far as neighbors Canada and Mexico, both countries have been actively encouraging AM operators migration to FM. It's been mentioned that over 80% of the AM operations in Mexico have been or are in the process of moving to FM. This includes the high power operations such as XEG, XEROK and XERF all licensed for 100kw plus MW power levels.

Well, If Mexico won't use those frequencies anymore, what's the chance that we can get them? If such a plan were ever to come to fruition, allow one of the plains states or eastern Rockies first dibs, with a Gulf state being given a consideration as well.

While the Mexico and Canadian AM stations are leaving the MW band, they have not and WILL NOT release the allocations to allow US operations to take over said frequencies. There were other threads on the forum about this topic earlier this year, over on the LA board if I remember correctly.

I wasn't able to find that thread. Either way, that's too bad if it's the case.

I personally know of several US stations on Mexican Clear Channels who would greatly benefit from a night-time power increase, but so far there is no chance for any upgrades now or in the foreseeable future...

I suppose there's a lot of red tape that goes along with all of this! My attitude: why let a channel go unused when someone could put it to good use? I feel there should be a 'use or lose' policy when it comes to that kind of 'stuff'!

Here's the link to the Canadian/Mexico AM migration to FM thread:
http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=221376.0

 

[Tom Wells]

Any relinquishing/wrangling over rights to spectrum, per conuntry, are decided in regular but infrequent international meetings of the ITU assembly. I thought it was every 15 years or something......

Unlike land rights granted in homesteading, it's not use it or lose it.

You're still protected, per country to rights of use of the spectrum, even if you move your commercial services out of that
"band", which was a "range" which came to be defined by the physical combination of a physical inducatance and capacitance, without switching ranges. That's mostly why the MW and PM "band is the range they are.
The concept of a "band" is somewhat obsolete as radios seldon include proper physical TRF tuning components anymore.

Someone must know when the next ITU meeting is, but I'd expect no change on protections.

 

[Jay Walker]

Any relinquishing/wrangling over rights to spectrum, per conuntry, are decided in regular but infrequent international meetings of the ITU assembly. I thought it was every 15 years or something......

Unlike land rights granted in homesteading, it's not use it or lose it.

You're still protected, per country to rights of use of the spectrum, even if you move your commercial services out of that
"band", which was a "range" which came to be defined by the physical combination of a physical inducatance and capacitance, without switching ranges. That's mostly why the MW and PM "band is the range they are.
The concept of a "band" is somewhat obsolete as radios seldon include proper physical TRF tuning components anymore.

Someone must know when the next ITU meeting is, but I'd expect no change on protections.

In the case of Mexican and Canadian stations, those are covered by the NARBA treaty enacted in 1941. This was part of the give and take with Mexico to eliminate the issue of 100kw plus stations interfering with US operations. It goes all the way back to good old Dr. Brinkley and XERA.

So in addition to modifying existing ITU agreements, the modification of the NARBA treaty would require congressional action. Once CON-gress gets involved the lobbyist spigots open. So it's one of those, "Be careful what you wish for" situations.

For a good "Time Sink" check out the wiki for NARBA and the reference links in the listing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Radio_Broadcasting_Agreement

 

[N1WVQ]

I thought NARBA was augmented by Rio in 1988.

 

[Jay Walker]

I thought NARBA was augmented by Rio in 1988.

I should have said "goes back to the "root" agreement of NARBA in 1941".
I went through and skimmed the various reports ('97 and '99) and those that concerned AM/MW broadcast were focused on MW expanded band operations and the proposed shift to 9khz spacing which thankfully never happened in the US..
I'm certain there are more recent reports having to do with agreements for IBOC operations, but I didn't look for those...

(PDF)Links:
www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/97report/97report.pdf‎
www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/99report/99report.pdf‎