New Report and Order

[w9wi]

It may be that a simpler approach is called for: In areas where there is nobody occupying channels 5 or 6, allow FM broadcasting in 200 KHz channels. If there is an existing TV station on one of those channels, then it can't be used for FM radio. Simple. It wouldn't help everyone, but it would help a lot of people.

Yep. It's pretty much what I'm suggesting - the only difference being I'm suggesting FM be allowed in *all five* low-band channels, provided there's no TV station present. That would greatly increase the chances at least one 6MHz block of spectrum would be available for radio expansion, and would increase the amount available.

I do have to agree that there is something fishy going on. I've noticed that several recent FCC Reports and Orders have contained language that seems to be giving someone a break, but actually has quite a reverse effect. A good example is the proposal that radio stations be manned 24/7 so the EAS system can work properly. On the surface, that sounds like a good idea, but in reality it will just force many smaller stations to sign off over-night. Nobody is served better by that eventuality. Things like this coming from the Commission make me wonder if there is an intentional motive or is someone being just plain stupid. I guess we will find out.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone in the Commission seriously believes they can "put the genie back in the bottle" and force stations to staff 24/7. Especially as they simultaneously try to undo consolidation.

I think it's a bone the conservative side of the Commission threw to the liberal side to get them to sign off on the conservative proposal to relax multiple- and cross-ownership rules. (a proposal that is equally absurd, at least when viewed through political reality.) I think both sides did it so they could tell "their" lobbyists that they were doing something for them. (knowing full well that nothing would actually happen on either side)

 

[Chuck]

Absolutely. I don't think anyone in the Commission seriously believes they can "put the genie back in the bottle" and force stations to staff 24/7. Especially as they simultaneously try to undo consolidation.

I think it's a bone the conservative side of the Commission threw to the liberal side to get them to sign off on the conservative proposal to relax multiple- and cross-ownership rules. (a proposal that is equally absurd, at least when viewed through political reality.) I think both sides did it so they could tell "their" lobbyists that they were doing something for them. (knowing full well that nothing would actually happen on either side)

Yep, I think they are just throwing bones out to various interest groups on all sides of the political spectrum. Meanwhile it is business as usual.

 

[Play Freebird]

Yep. It's pretty much what I'm suggesting - the only difference being I'm suggesting FM be allowed in *all five* low-band channels, provided there's no TV station present. That would greatly increase the chances at least one 6MHz block of spectrum would be available for radio expansion, and would increase the amount available.

I would agree that the best strategy would be a proposal to share the low band with TV, rather than demanding that it be assigned exclusively to radio. There is a precedent for shared use already in place (FM Channel 200), not to mention many other radio services share spectrum (for example, the Amateur 70 cm band) and this has proven to be practical.

However, from the standpoint of simplifying receiver chip design, it would be preferable to shift as many TV stations as possible from Channels 5 and 6 to the lower three channels (unless UHF or high-band VHF channels can be found), and make 76 MHz the break point. As most of you know, Japan's FM band begins at 76, so this would be consistent with another world market. FM stations would also find it easier to use master transmit antennas if the band could be confined to 76-108, rather than cover the full octave of 54-108.

At this point, the FCC just needs to put a freeze on new applications for these channels so that we minimize displacement later on.

 

[kenglish]

DRM has not been a rousing success in Europe on shortwave, in fact some transmitters have been shut down recently, digital radio is dying all over the place over there, why don't we just take their lead or are we doomed to repeat history?
[/quote]

DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) isn't the service that's flopping. It's DAB (Digital Audio Broadcast), which uses the upper VHF Band (7-13, if we were talking USA frequencies), or L-Band (1.5 GHz).

But, here's my idea....
Why give more space to "same-old, same-old" FM? Are listeners really going to flock to the stores to buy a new (plain old) FM radio?

Why not make channels 5 and 6 in to a "Digital Only" band? Allocate the channels in a way that's similar to what we do on FM now....make a Class-A(d), Class-B(d), Class-C(d), and Class-D(d), with Digital-only broadcasts. Make the power levels about 1/3 to 1/2 what the equivalent analog FMs would be in a market...whatever would give a coverage area similar to that of an analog FM.

Require them to be "All Digital" from the first point of playback (i.e.:, you could play from vinyl, from reel-to-reel, from an Edison cylinder, even), then have to be digital throughout the rest of the chain. Minimal processing only, no MP-3 sounding junk. This would accomodate formats like classical, jazz, esoteric music, etc.

Let the college stations and the "Beautiful Music" formats migrate to All-Digital. Those are the listeners that have always put up those huge FM antennas, and who live to hear good sounding music. So, they would be most likely to buy a new, HD Radio.

I'm no expert on what's inside them, but I suspect that HD Radios could be adapted to the 76-88 MHz band with just a software/firmware upgrade. So, they could be changed over, before or after the sale.

Eventually, we could clear out some of the current "clutter" in the analog FM band. Stations could go "full-power digital", and make coverage that equals an existing analog's.

BTW, let's keep the hooligans out, by requiring a minimum of 12 hours a day of live, local programming. No "all-talk" formats. No screaming preachers. No canned stuff. Make it like radio was!

 

[w9wi]

However, from the standpoint of simplifying receiver chip design, it would be preferable to shift as many TV stations as possible from Channels 5 and 6 to the lower three channels (unless UHF or high-band VHF channels can be found),

This would be problematical for the TV stations involved though. The incidence of sporadic-E propagation gets a LOT higher as you move down the dial - it's VERY common to have skip on channels 2 and 3 and none at 5 or 6.

Skip is a lot less of a problem for radio stations than it is for TV. If there's a skip opening between Nashville and Midland, Texas, there's a much greater chance that there's no Texas station on 92.1 to interfere with WQQK than that there's no Texas station on channel 2 to interfere with WKRN. Because there are 100 FM channels but only 5 low-band TV channels. Going digital doesn't affect this differential, and since significant skip interference will make a DTV signal go away completely (rather than generating horizontal lines in the picture) this is especially problematical.

and make 76 MHz the break point. As most of you know, Japan's FM band begins at 76, so this would be consistent with another world market. FM stations would also find it easier to use master transmit antennas if the band could be confined to 76-108, rather than cover the full octave of 54-108.

Japan's FM band *ends* at 90. (they use 90-108 for TV. Because the incidence of sporadic-E is considerably higher in Japan than it is in the U.S., and again skip interference is a bigger problem for TV than it is for radio.) A Japanese FM radio design would still have to be revamped to work with a 76-108MHz American FM band.

At this point, the FCC just needs to put a freeze on new applications for these channels so that we minimize displacement later on.

There is already a freeze on new TV applications. Except for LPTV displacements - and really I think it would be unfair to that service to put 2-6 off limits until they get the transition worked out.

 

[KB1OKL]

DRM is not doing well either, someone on the HCXD list just reported that a lot of shortwave DRM transmitters were shut down, forgot where, I didn't keep the e-mail either. Digital is just plain not doing well anywhere in the world unless ahem.... you believe the iBlock Alliance our own little spin machine from Maryland. It was a stupid idea and it's performance is even worse than the idea.

 

[tripinva]

I don't know why there's this huge misconception that there was just no way for WPVI to move to a UHF frequency, because it's just not true. If WPVI wanted a UHF, they could have gotten it, but ABC decided to try channel 6 anyway. They could have moved WWSI-DT to channel 10 or something and taken channels 48 or 50. Or they could have moved WTVE-DT to channel 50 or 51 (more expensive due to their DTS) and gotten a wide-open WPVI-DT on channel 25. But they chose not to do this.

It's not going to end well.

Low-VHF is not good for digital TV. Leaving out e-skip and electrical noise, which Chicago viewers of WBBM-DT can tell you all about, they require huge antennas and are quite poor with regard to indoor antennas compared to UHF in my experience. Further, watching WBRA-DT locally, every time lightning struck between myself and the tower, even if it wasn't storming outside our house, the entire signal would drop. Even with separate VHF and UHF antennas on the roof, which deliver completely clear and ghost-free analogs and solid UHF digitals, WBRA-DT will not stay locked in without atmospheric help.

Now it's possible that a reduced noise floor without analogs will help the situation, but I'm not hopeful, especially for stations on channel 6 that will have FMs to deal with.

I'm convinced that the ideal solution is to make TV on channels 2-6 a secondary service, as previously stated. Allow no new TV stations to be built in that frequency range, but leave the ones that are already there alone until they realize on their own what a mistake it was. Most can move to upper-VHF digitals to save themselves on power, I even made myself a list showing that most of them can move to upper VHF.

Then use channels 2-4 to migrate the AMs to FM using either fully digital IBOC or FM Extra (or something else, if it works better) and use channels 5 and 6 for an expanded FM, with top priority going to clearing up short-spaced stations such as the 105.7s in York and Baltimore, and allowing the D-class stations that keep getting bumped a place to be licensed.

I thought about submitting comments on this, but then saw the same thing as Play Freebird and didn't know what to do. I may still file comments, since I have the document I was working on saved. We'll see.

- Trip

 

[MotoMuzak]

"Why give more space to 'same-old, same-old' FM? Are listeners really going to flock to the stores to buy a new (plain old) FM radio?"

Remember tho, the multiband or AM/FM radios that also receive TV audio, like my Sony ICF36--particularly by tuning within the 2-6 spectrum--could easily be used to receive FM radio stations in the extended band. The only real modification I can see making to the radio itself is the user scratching the "TV-Lo" indicator off the selector switch and writing something like "FM-Lo" in its place instead. Granted, this would only work with analogue transmissions (haven't seen many portable radios yet that receive ATSC audio, besides one and it's only available in Japan!) and some radios with digital tuners may have trouble using this mode, particularly if the "extended FM band" should become over-crowded.

(This is what I did when I went to Japan a few years ago with a little pocket radio I unfortunately don't have any more!)

On the other hand, however, if the band is used for some DAB system like EU147 or Ibiquity etc., then this really would be a moot point............

 

[Tom Wells]

Yes. The radios are already out there, ready to receive the AMs moving up to FM "low band".
With this one change, and simulcasting, there is no good reason not to be able to receive a local signal in >most< places.

No problem getting more such radios into production.

When you're all done with the MW band, can I have it?

 

[JohnnyElectron]

I think after they move the AM's to FM-Low, that they should have a lottery and all the licensed Amateur Radio Extra Class operators get put into a lottery for each congressional district only, and only TWO stations per congressional district - then there would be only 870 AM stations! That way the stations would be allotted by population appropriately. They would be allocated existing local frequencies first so they could 're-purpose' a local tower too. The hams could play music on MW-only once again, after it was taken away from them back in the 20's, and they could broadcast - but non-commercial. 1KW limit, and any mode they want!
The US Govt would retain a four AM MW frequencies for emergency alert use with 1MW transmitters in four different parts of the band to allow for better ground-wave, skywave issues, including the old CONELRAD channels 640 and 1240 - already marked on your radio dial!

Now, we just have to move those pesky AM stations to FM and we're all set - okay (daydream mode off).

 

[w9wi]

I don't know why there's this huge misconception that there was just no way for WPVI to move to a UHF frequency, because it's just not true. If WPVI wanted a UHF, they could have gotten it, but ABC decided to try channel 6 anyway. They could have moved WWSI-DT to channel 10 or something and taken channels 48 or 50. Or they could have moved WTVE-DT to channel 50 or 51 (more expensive due to their DTS) and gotten a wide-open WPVI-DT on channel 25. But they chose not to do this.

It's not going to end well.

I suppose the other factors would be cable penetration (does WPVI really care, as long as the cable head-end gets the signal?) and utility rates. (operating on channel 6 is a LOT less expensive than using channel 48)

Channel 10 for WWSI would run afoul of WHTM in Harrisburg. WNJN would make ch. 51 off-limits. Not sure why they couldn't do 50 but WGNT (Norfolk, Va.), WPCB (east of Pittsburgh), and WYPX (near Albany) are possible reasons. Or maybe not.

I'm convinced that the ideal solution is to make TV on channels 2-6 a secondary service, as previously stated. Allow no new TV stations to be built in that frequency range, but leave the ones that are already there alone until they realize on their own what a mistake it was. Most can move to upper-VHF digitals to save themselves on power, I even made myself a list showing that most of them can move to upper VHF.

Then use channels 2-4 to migrate the AMs to FM using either fully digital IBOC or FM Extra (or something else, if it works better) and use channels 5 and 6 for an expanded FM, with top priority going to clearing up short-spaced stations such as the 105.7s in York and Baltimore, and allowing the D-class stations that keep getting bumped a place to be licensed.

I just filed some comments. The table I used to show channel availability is on http://www.w9wi.com/articles/lowbandtofm.html . If one agrees with my methodology, it shows that assigning radio to 54-88MHz on a secondary basis to existing TV service (including LPTV and Class A but excluding full-power analog which will go away before such a service could be implemented) would make at least 12MHz of radio spectrum available in all top-10 markets, in many cases operating at a full Class B/C facility. In Houston, I suggest thirty new 100,000-watt stations could be authorized. (more, if a channel 5 LPTV there is granted and implements a move to channel 29)

I propose the use of full-digital IBOC in the new spectrum. With no analog stations to interfere with, and no analog signal for self-interference, it should be possible to run a full 50/100kw of digital power. This should clear up digital's coverage problems - and allow for better audio quality even with multiple subchannels.

I argue that new receivers would be necessary in any case, so there is no need to restrict radio to the top 12MHz of the band or to stick with analog FM transmission.

 

[tripinva]

Channel 10 for WWSI would run afoul of WHTM in Harrisburg. WNJN would make ch. 51 off-limits. Not sure why they couldn't do 50 but WGNT (Norfolk, Va.), WPCB (east of Pittsburgh), and WYPX (near Albany) are possible reasons. Or maybe not.

WWSI-DT on 49. Too close. Thus why it has to be moved.

WHTM and WWSI wouldn't overlap. WTVE on 51 would interfere with WNJN though; good call. (50 would still work) The FCC only cares about overlap of signals now. Or at least, that was all they cared about when they were trying to jam all the stations in.

- Trip