• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Let the hash wars begin!

W

westlife

Guest
FCC says nighttime AM IBOC is coming, like it or not...

http://www.radioworld.com/dailynews/one.php?id=8702

<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
> Do you think MR FCC knows probably 1/2 of all AM stations
> will never get it to work through their old crappy
> transmission systems?

Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference problem, if half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell out to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade their transmission systems. -- Jason
 
> > FCC says nighttime AM IBOC is coming, like it or not...
> >
> > http://www.radioworld.com/dailynews/one.php?id=8702
> >
>
> To parody Jim Gearhart......
>
> "Would the last engineer at the FCC please turn out the
> lighhts?"
>
Good one!

It will be interesting to see how the staff can back up Martin's prediction. After years of the industry busting a hump to design new systems protecting other stations and "ratcheting" back power with regard to changes on existing systems, its hard to believe that they could throw it all over for a system that will increase the noise floor. For what? Great sounding talk radio? For a system that reverts to analog when presented with broadband noise or impulse noise? It is illogical.

Frankly, it makes me wonder if someone has been stuffing cash into the pockets of the regulators. At least that would make all this make sense.
 
Re: Well.....

> FCC says nighttime AM IBOC is coming, like it or not...
>
> http://www.radioworld.com/dailynews/one.php?id=8702
>


If it takes out one of the useless AMs, then let it be:)<P ID="signature">______________
Happy 20th Birthday Power 106

JOSH, Moderating the whole Radio-Info radio state of California and Indiana too!

www.myspace.com/radiogeek500</P>
 
> Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
> Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference problem, if
> half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell out
> to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade their
> transmission systems. -- Jason

why the CC slam?<P ID="signature">______________
but wait...there's more!</P>
 
> why the CC slam?

Hel-lo! They are the ones who saddled us with this crappy system in the first place. So I'll slam them and their poorly engineered system anywhere, any time!

The FFC - making engineering decisions based on business reasons. They, Clear Channel, and Ibiquity can be grateful no lives are at stake, or they could be sued for their poor engineering.
 
It's all about money. How else can stations double or triple their number of stations without applications, without competitive bidding, without letting anyone else in. In many cases you are going to have one company providing up to 20 or more signals in any one market. Is that fair? My bet is that there will be lawsuits over that, and the technical end of interference. If you want to know how todays FCC operates, just look at the approval they gave to cross border operations to Mexican stations that have been proven to not be where they say they are, have more power than they are supposed to have. This is another mess they caused.
My bet is that it will take a few years to sort this all out in court over the above issues. You cant sue now, because the final rules havent come out, but once they do, the suits will begin.




> > > FCC says nighttime AM IBOC is coming, like it or not...
> > >
> > > http://www.radioworld.com/dailynews/one.php?id=8702
> > >
> >
> > To parody Jim Gearhart......
> >
> > "Would the last engineer at the FCC please turn out the
> > lighhts?"
> >
> Good one!
>
> It will be interesting to see how the staff can back up
> Martin's prediction. After years of the industry busting a
> hump to design new systems protecting other stations and
> "ratcheting" back power with regard to changes on existing
> systems, its hard to believe that they could throw it all
> over for a system that will increase the noise floor. For
> what? Great sounding talk radio? For a system that reverts
> to analog when presented with broadband noise or impulse
> noise? It is illogical.
>
> Frankly, it makes me wonder if someone has been stuffing
> cash into the pockets of the regulators. At least that
> would make all this make sense.
>
 
Now you can hear IBUZ every night everywhere

> FCC says nighttime AM IBOC is coming, like it or not...
>
> http://www.radioworld.com/dailynews/one.php?id=8702
>
If you didn't get enough IBUZ in the day, now you can enjoy it at night too! Who wants to hear those DX stations on adjacent frequencies when you can hear the wonderful sound of IBUZ hash. And for those of you with Highly Distorted radios, how about hearing the digital signal go in and out at night. IBUZ is so much better than AM Stereo, since you can hear the station in HD stereo quality within a few miles of the transmitter, instead of that useless AM stereo for hundreds of miles. I hope IBUZ at night is approved by the FCC.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org</P>
 
Re: Now you can hear IBUZ every night everywhere

It is gratifying to me to see that a young person is so astute about broadcast issues. Young man - I am a great admirer of yours, keep that courage to speak out against bad engineering, and the RIGHT type of company will always be there to listen to you, and hire you.

Great use of sarcasm to get your point across. I share your sentiments - approve the nighttime IBOC, ruin the bad, and let the public outcry do our work for us! Sports fans alone, who can no longer hear their former hometown team on a 50 kW (formerly) clear channel station will be enough by themselves. Ibiquity is underestimating the DX'ers, and that will be their undoing! You DON'T mess with people's sports!


> If you didn't get enough IBUZ in the day, now you can enjoy
> it at night too! Who wants to hear those DX stations on
> adjacent frequencies when you can hear the wonderful sound
> of IBUZ hash. And for those of you with Highly Distorted
> radios, how about hearing the digital signal go in and out
> at night. IBUZ is so much better than AM Stereo, since you
> can hear the station in HD stereo quality within a few miles
> of the transmitter, instead of that useless AM stereo for
> hundreds of miles. I hope IBUZ at night is approved by the
> FCC.
>
 
> > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
> > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference problem,
> if
> > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell out
>
> > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade
> their
> > transmission systems. -- Jason
>
> why the CC slam?

What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up many independent and small-network radio stations. While I don't like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that it is happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
 
> > > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
> > > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference problem,
>
> > if
> > > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell
> out
> >
> > > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade
> > their
> > > transmission systems. -- Jason
> >
> > why the CC slam?
>
> What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up many
> independent and small-network radio stations. While I don't
> like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that it is
> happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
>

As a matter of fact you are wrong. CC does not buy up small network stations. What stations in particular are YOU talking about?

As a matter of fact CC has started to divest a few smaller stations.

As a matter of fact CC only owns about 10% of the stations out there. Not exactly an overwhelming majority is it??

As a matter of fact CC engineers do help the smaller stations in many instances.

So where are YOUR facts?
 
Just here in Fairbanks, Alaska, Clear Channel has KAKQ 101.1, KIAK 102.5, KKED 104.7, and KFBX 970. These stations are all owned by Capstar TX Limited Partnership (Clear Channel Group), and they identify themselves on the air as Clear Channel stations.

They all have largely the same air staff who do news, local commercials, and public service announcements, and this along with their mostly in-common music rejoinders and news sounders makes them all very homogenous, more so than they used to be before CC acquired them. (And no, I'm not a former station employee who lost his job at one of them--I like good, distinctive radio programming, and consolidation hasn't increased these stations' uniqueness but has achieved the opposite instead.) -- Jason

> > > > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
> > > > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference
> problem,
> >
> > > if
> > > > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell
>
> > out
> > >
> > > > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade
>
> > > their
> > > > transmission systems. -- Jason
> > >
> > > why the CC slam?
> >
> > What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up
> many
> > independent and small-network radio stations. While I
> don't
> > like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that it
> is
> > happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
> >
>
> As a matter of fact you are wrong. CC does not buy up small
> network stations. What stations in particular are YOU
> talking about?
>
> As a matter of fact CC has started to divest a few smaller
> stations.
>
> As a matter of fact CC only owns about 10% of the stations
> out there. Not exactly an overwhelming majority is it??
>
> As a matter of fact CC engineers do help the smaller
> stations in many instances.
>
> So where are YOUR facts?
>
 
CC may own only 10% of the AM stations, but in each market, they own the best signals. Makes a big difference. In many cases they own over 50% of the audience. Some of that is the programming, but some is the sheer size of the signals they own.




> > > > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
> > > > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference
> problem,
> >
> > > if
> > > > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or sell
>
> > out
> > >
> > > > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to upgrade
>
> > > their
> > > > transmission systems. -- Jason
> > >
> > > why the CC slam?
> >
> > What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up
> many
> > independent and small-network radio stations. While I
> don't
> > like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that it
> is
> > happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
> >
>
> As a matter of fact you are wrong. CC does not buy up small
> network stations. What stations in particular are YOU
> talking about?
>
> As a matter of fact CC has started to divest a few smaller
> stations.
>
> As a matter of fact CC only owns about 10% of the stations
> out there. Not exactly an overwhelming majority is it??
>
> As a matter of fact CC engineers do help the smaller
> stations in many instances.
>
> So where are YOUR facts?
>
 
Sounds like they made good business decisions. Radio is a BUSINESS (to some that is a dirty word I guess)

> CC may own only 10% of the AM stations, but in each market,
> they own the best signals. Makes a big difference. In many
> cases they own over 50% of the audience. Some of that is
> the programming, but some is the sheer size of the signals
> they own.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
>
> > > > > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference
> > problem,
> > >
> > > > if
> > > > > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or
> sell
> >
> > > out
> > > >
> > > > > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to
> upgrade
> >
> > > > their
> > > > > transmission systems. -- Jason
> > > >
> > > > why the CC slam?
> > >
> > > What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up
> > many
> > > independent and small-network radio stations. While I
> > don't
> > > like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that
> it
> > is
> > > happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
> > >
> >
> > As a matter of fact you are wrong. CC does not buy up
> small
> > network stations. What stations in particular are YOU
> > talking about?
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC has started to divest a few smaller
>
> > stations.
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC only owns about 10% of the stations
>
> > out there. Not exactly an overwhelming majority is it??
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC engineers do help the smaller
> > stations in many instances.
> >
> > So where are YOUR facts?
> >
>
 
> Frankly, it makes me wonder if someone has been stuffing
> cash into the pockets of the regulators. At least that
> would make all this make sense.

While we do have the best government money can buy, I'm sure that wasn't a factor in any IBUZ decision. I'm positive those decisions, past and future, have been and will be based on good engineering practice.

Please check Ebay for my collection of bridges for sale.

Rich
 
> technical end of interference. If you want to know how
> todays FCC operates, just look at the approval they gave to
> cross border operations to Mexican stations that have been
> proven to not be where they say they are, have more power
> than they are supposed to have. This is another mess they
> caused.

I used to program a Mexican "border blaster" - XTRA, San Diego/Tijuana. The FCC has no jurisdiction over Mexican operation. It can only issue a 325B authorization to originate programming in the US to be fed to Mexico for retransmission into the US.

One way or another, the stations will find a way to make it happen. Not issuing the authorization simply makes it a little harder. At XTRA, both AM and FM, (91X) we found ways without the authorization.

One advantage was that Mexico allowed experimentation (at XTRA with Kahn AM Stereo) before the US did. My guess is that they'll be more lenient with IBUZ. A good thing, since problems will surface so we can solve them.

Rich
 
OK it sounds like CC made another good business decision. What other clusters do the same thing that CC does in regards to news staff and the like? If the mom and pop station had a cluster they would do the same thing. And probably would haev done it before CC did it.

So what exactly is your point?



> Just here in Fairbanks, Alaska, Clear Channel has KAKQ
> 101.1, KIAK 102.5, KKED 104.7, and KFBX 970. These stations
> are all owned by Capstar TX Limited Partnership (Clear
> Channel Group), and they identify themselves on the air as
> Clear Channel stations.
>
> They all have largely the same air staff who do news, local
> commercials, and public service announcements, and this
> along with their mostly in-common music rejoinders and news
> sounders makes them all very homogenous, more so than they
> used to be before CC acquired them. (And no, I'm not a
> former station employee who lost his job at one of them--I
> like good, distinctive radio programming, and consolidation
> hasn't increased these stations' uniqueness but has achieved
> the opposite instead.) -- Jason
>
> > > > > Maybe that's part of the plan. That would be a very
>
> > > > > Darwinian way to "solve" the AM HD interference
> > problem,
> > >
> > > > if
> > > > > half of the AM stations are forced to go dark (or
> sell
> >
> > > out
> > > >
> > > > > to Clear Channel) because they can't afford to
> upgrade
> >
> > > > their
> > > > > transmission systems. -- Jason
> > > >
> > > > why the CC slam?
> > >
> > > What slam? Clear Channel has bought up and does buy up
> > many
> > > independent and small-network radio stations. While I
> > don't
> > > like media consolidation, merely stating the fact that
> it
> > is
> > > happening is not in itself a slam. -- Jason
> > >
> >
> > As a matter of fact you are wrong. CC does not buy up
> small
> > network stations. What stations in particular are YOU
> > talking about?
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC has started to divest a few smaller
>
> > stations.
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC only owns about 10% of the stations
>
> > out there. Not exactly an overwhelming majority is it??
> >
> > As a matter of fact CC engineers do help the smaller
> > stations in many instances.
> >
> > So where are YOUR facts?
> >
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom