IS THE AM RADIO BAND DOOMED? WHAT DO YOU THINK? I DON'T THINK SO!

[w9wi]

I like PART of this idea. If it was up to me, I'd allow an additional 60 channels for FM broadcast. It could either cover the 82-88 MHz or the 108-114 MHz spectrum.

I'll just reiterate, that 82-88 is not available for FM broadcast use in several major areas, including the Philadelphia, New York, and Albany areas, as well as Birmingham and possibly Atlanta.

640-1220 (639-1224) and 1500-1580 (1503-1584); all clear channels. If any regional channels exist in this spectrum, no more than one such channel per 100 kHz. Clear channel rules which prevailed before 1980 to be re-instated.

FWIW, regional channels in this spectrum are 790, 910-930, 950-980, and 1150.

1230-1490 (1233-1494) and 1590-1600 (1593-1602); all Local channels. Again, If any regional channels exist in this spectrum, no more than one such channel per 100 kHz.

FWIW all of these channels are regionals under the current rules *except*: 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490.

 

[DG02816]

Don't forget that 540 kHz is shared by Canada and Mexico, from NARBA. The 9 kHz spacing would also give 531 kHz; would that be considered a clear? If allowing power of greater than 50 kW, what would happen with physically close adjacent-channel stations like WEPN and KYW, and KDKA and WBZ? Outside the continental US, Class C channels are considered Class B.A CP exists for a 5 kW directional on 1450 in Hawaii.

 

[klutch00]

I like PART of this idea. If it was up to me, I'd allow an additional 60 channels for FM broadcast. It could either cover the 82-88 MHz or the 108-114 MHz spectrum.

I'll just reiterate, that 82-88 is not available for FM broadcast use in several major areas, including the Philadelphia, New York, and Albany areas, as well as Birmingham and possibly Atlanta.

What I was thinking of was to move all of the "Channel 6" allocations to another frequency (maybe resurrect "Channel 70?"). The other option would be to expand FM to include 108-114MHz. What would be wrong with that or is there something I don't know?

640-1220 (639-1224) and 1500-1580 (1503-1584); all clear channels. If any regional channels exist in this spectrum, no more than one such channel per 100 kHz. Clear channel rules which prevailed before 1980 to be re-instated.

FWIW, regional channels in this spectrum are 790, 910-930, 950-980, and 1150.[/quote]

I was suggesting that once the expanded FM band was established, the frequencies above could be reallocated as clear channels with maybe a few exceptions. With more frequencies available for clear channel broadcasting, maybe each state in the union could be given at least one Class I (A or B) station.

1230-1490 (1233-1494) and 1590-1600 (1593-1602); all Local channels. Again, If any regional channels exist in this spectrum, no more than one such channel per 100 kHz.

FWIW all of these channels are regional under the current rules *except*: 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490.[/quote]

I'm aware of that! Again, I'm suggesting that once the migration of AM stations to the FM band has been largely been completed, the channels in question could be opened up for smaller broadcasters. Now, If a broadcaster who currently operates a facility on such frequencies decides not to migrate and to stay put, that's OK. The condition should be that said operator(s) would have to operate within the guidelines. As I already stated, I would favor liberalizing 'new' local channel regulations in the lower-48 to allow ERP to be increased to 2,500-D, 1,000-N. I might also suggest that directional antennas be limited as much as possible on such channels.

Let me reiterate that these are just some thoughts I had as to how to overhaul the AM and FM bands. This may not come to pass, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

 

[klutch00]

Don't forget that 540 kHz is shared by Canada and Mexico, from NARBA. The 9 kHz spacing would also give 531 kHz; would that be considered a clear?

I'd say why not? The only question that would remain would be who gets it?

If allowing power of greater than 50 kW, what would happen with physically close adjacent-channel stations like WEPN and KYW, and KDKA and WBZ? Outside the continental US, Class C channels are considered Class B.A CP exists for a 5 kW directional on 1450 in Hawaii.

Under my "plan", the stations that could and should be exiled to an expanded FM band should include those which have the most compromised service patterns. A partial list of such stations would likely include: in Boston: WRKO, WEEI and WWZN; In Albany NY, 1540; in New York City, WINS OR WEPN, WVNJ and WLIB, In Philadelphia, WNTP; in Baltimore, WCBM; Around the Washington DC area, 1190. For these stations, I'd try to allow for allocations up to 100,000 watts after the move, if possible. For other class II-C or II-S stations, they'd be given an opportunity to move to the expanded band depending on their needs though many if not most of these would be limited to what would be the equivalent of a Class A FM channel. The rest could apply to move to one of the 'new' local channels.

Keep in mind that under my 'plan', AM transmission in the United States would still be limited to 50,000 watts. The only exceptions I could see for this would be deep within the heartland. The allocations of 100,000 watts would only apply to the expanded FM band and only on certain frequencies. Again, I'd also let regional channels outside of the lower-48.

 

[w9wi]

I'll just reiterate, that 82-88 is not available for FM broadcast use in several major areas, including the Philadelphia, New York, and Albany areas, as well as Birmingham and possibly Atlanta.

What I was thinking of was to move all of the "Channel 6" allocations to another frequency (maybe resurrect "Channel 70?"). The other option would be to expand FM to include 108-114MHz. What would be wrong with that or is there something I don't know?

(here's hoping those quotes wrap properly )

There is nowhere else to put the TV stations; if they *could* have moved to UHF, it would have already happened. For that matter, if there was 6MHz of open UHF spectrum to fit a TV station, the FCC would be auctioning it to wireless companies. They want to encourage TV stations to move *from* UHF, not *to* UHF.

I won't claim to be familiar with aeronautical communications. I will say when I tune 108-114 I don't hear anything -- but I live 20 miles from the nearest controlled airport, so if this spectrum is used for ground-to-air transmissions, I wouldn't *expect* to hear anything. I don't know if there is any chance of reassignment. ISTR this spectrum is used for navigation aids.

 

[iyiyi]

WBZ 1030 HD. I live over 50 miles from their xmtr so HD reception is in and out - mostly out.

Interesting. My JVC in dash unit gets WBZ in HD in Tilton NH...roughly 90 miles away. An occasional switch to analog but I'd say 90% of the time the lock is solid.
Even weirder, 50kw WEVO-FM in Concord (18 miles away) can't hold a decent HD lock.

Both of my JVCs behave the same with WBZ. The analog signal sounds "great" until you compare it to HD. The HD is a steady, clear signal until it drops out. When the HD drops out, it is very easy to understand just how poorly the analog performs in comparison.

The WEVO-FM deal is similar to the CC FMs in my town. I was maybe 15 miles from the xmtrs and going crazy trying to hold the headphone cord (antenna) on my Insignia to hear a tune. Move it one inch and lose a HD2. CC boosted the HD powers on the FMs and I have zero problems with HD now. I can bunch the headphone cord in my pocket or tie it in knots. Talk to a person in the know at WEVO and they'll tell you they are running HD at -20dBc. When they boost their HD power, I guarantee WEVO's HD reception will no longer be any real problem inside their 60dBu contour.

For the 76-88 Mhz guys: 1) It doesn't really matter if there is a channel 5 or 6 operating in a particular market. I don't believe there is a 5 and 6 DTV operating in the same market. The lower UHF channels have been sharing their frequencies with mobile (police, fire etc) services for many years. Areas with a 5 or 6 could have FM stations assigned on the vacant channel, just like UHF. 2) It really doesn't matter. Most of us will be dead before 76-88 Mhz set penetration would match current HD receiver market penetration. 3) How does (did) the expanded AM band help anything at all?

Current and forseeable radio dynamics (economy, technology etc) do not recommend major outlays of capital for "improvements" that will provide about as much ROI as a hula hoop.

Like it or no; HD digital is the future of radio.

-

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

Expanding either the AM or FM band to make room for additional
stations is not going to happen. It is commercially not viable.
There is only so much revenue to go around, and additional
stations would never be able to recoup their investments,
much less make a profit.

Oh - for the record - we (WLYN-WAZN) are hanging in there just fine!!

 

[HHH]

This may be a crazy comment, but I wish that the FCC would have taken 1620 (not 1610 as you will see why) through 1700 and established
five, 750kw, non-directioanl stations on 1620, 1640, 1660, 1680 and 1700 which would be strategically placed in five regions of the United States. These stations would be set aside for news, weather and information for their appropriate regions. Therefore, regardless of where you are in the USA, you should be able to pick up ONE of these stations in times of emergency or in deep rural areas where radio service is sparse. If you space the frequencies just right (example: Northeast: 1620, Northwest 1640, Southeast 1660, Southwest 1680, Central USA 1700) you should keep nighttime skip interference to a minimum.

Too late now.

I wonder if this would have worked.

In Europe, BBC and Radio France have super-power transmitters on low, longwave frequencies and they are heard all over Europe in daylight hours.

 

[aerie]

This may be a crazy comment, but I wish that the FCC would have taken 1620 (not 1610 as you will see why) through 1700 and established
five, 750kw, non-directioanl stations on 1620, 1640, 1660, 1680 and 1700 which would be strategically placed in five regions of the United States. These stations would be set aside for news, weather and information for their appropriate regions. Therefore, regardless of where you are in the USA, you should be able to pick up ONE of these stations in times of emergency or in deep rural areas where radio service is sparse. If you space the frequencies just right (example: Northeast: 1620, Northwest 1640, Southeast 1660, Southwest 1680, Central USA 1700) you should keep nighttime skip interference to a minimum.

Who would operate these stations? If it were a commercial entity, chances are the news/weather/information service you envision would not be considered viable. And unlike Europe, the government is prohibited from internal broadcasts within the USA.

What I would like to see is for the FCC to rationalize the allocation of Class A AM stations to reflect current (not 1920's) population centers. Small cities like Rochester and Schenectady NY have Class A, non-directional, 50 kW stations but much larger cities in the sun belt have only inferior signals. I also think the FCC should reallocate the FM band in much of the country, to place the full class B signals in the larger cities, and allocate only Class A stations to the smaller cities. Boston, for example, was short changed on the full class B allocations because of the smaller cities nearby (Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, etc.). These rimshot class B's try to cover the major city, but do so poorly for the most part. The would probably be better off in the long run to serve their city of license rather than trying to attract big city advertisers with a poor signal in the city.

 

[Tom Wells]

This may be a crazy comment, but I wish that the FCC would have taken 1620 (not 1610 as you will see why) through 1700 and established
five, 750kw, non-directioanl stations on 1620, 1640, 1660, 1680 and 1700 which would be strategically placed in five regions of the United States. These stations would be set aside for news, weather and information for their appropriate regions. Therefore, regardless of where you are in the USA, you should be able to pick up ONE of these stations in times of emergency or in deep rural areas where radio service is sparse. If you space the frequencies just right (example: Northeast: 1620, Northwest 1640, Southeast 1660, Southwest 1680, Central USA 1700) you should keep nighttime skip interference to a minimum.

Too late now.

I wonder if this would have worked.

In Europe, BBC and Radio France have super-power transmitters on low, longwave frequencies and they are heard all over Europe in daylight hours.

Not crazy at all, and it would work very well for those who who HAVEN"T maintained the cutting edge of
technology in radios.

New radios are often just too broad in the front end section to make much use of dx in many situations.

Only more expensive radios could really make use of the opportunity.
Or older radios which are more selective and sensitive.
Then there's the noise isssue, which many consider unfixable to the extent that they speak as if the noise is somehow sacred
and must be left there in order to hobble radio to the fullest.

We don't permit contamination of other public resources, so why is this particular pollution permitted and promoted.?

The only people who are going to bother to keep their environment clean of rf trash are those who have
always known what makes the interference and keeps such things off, away, shielded or filtered.

The idea of wide AM too powerful for the small minded-ness of the radio business, which is not primarily about service to the public, but more about getting market share and elbowing over whose market is it anyway.....

AM radio is far too radio-like for the needs of business, and they wish that darn skywave would go away.
What the industry desires is tightly controlled range as 88-108 mhz behaves.
Depending on the size of the "world" you need to operate in, this method may or may not work well.

It's much like arbitrarily deciding that only sprint running is of use, and long distance running is old-fashioned.

As much as I think superpower and continental coverage is a good idea for radio, so would be statesmanship in society.
Instead we have petty politics, which serves the smaller good.

I really wish I'd been able to hear what the domestic shortwave outlets of AM broadcast sounded like before WW2.
Especially the ones that operated above 30 mhz.

 

[wcozBoston]

Isn't the 108-114MHz band used for aircraft communications? Why would this band work any better than the 76-88MHz?

 

[channel99]

Posted by: wcozBoston

Isn't the 108-114MHz band used for aircraft communications? Why would this band work any better than the 76-88MHz?

108-118 MHz is used by VOR (VHF Omni Range) and ILS (Instrument Landing System) - both aircraft navigation systems. There is little, if any voice here, and therefore may appear to be unused to scanner listeners.