• 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

The End of the Ch. 5 & 6 Debate to Expand FM?

That's certainly what it looks like. When you consider the FCC seems to be in the pocket of the telecom industry, it makes sense. Wireless devices won't work very well a lower frequencies, so lets move all the TV stations into the VHF band to clear out the UHF frequencies. Perfect. I'm sure the TV broadcasters who just spent millions moving to new digital channels will be thrilled!
 
Chuck said:
That's certainly what it looks like. When you consider the FCC seems to be in the pocket of the telecom industry, it makes sense. Wireless devices won't work very well a lower frequencies, so lets move all the TV stations into the VHF band to clear out the UHF frequencies. Perfect. I'm sure the TV broadcasters who just spent millions moving to new digital channels will be thrilled!
Click to expand...

Yep, it's going to mean a double build for a lot of us.

For some it could be as simple as a change in mask filter or just a retune of the filter. But if involves going from UHF to VHF then we're looking at new antenna arrays, filters, power divider, more then likely a new PA and for some a new exciter. And if ATSC 3.0 becomes a reality then we're looking at a triple build.

A real mess!!!
 
Not to mention the fact that, if in this round, the commission doesn't fix their F-up on power levels that SHOULDN'T have been so severely cut in the initial transition, that'll leave many stations on VHF which cannot effectively cover their original signal area. Yes, digital takes up less bandwidth, but not so much less that power levels could have been cut back as much as they were. In fact, there were plenty of markets where the local stations COULD have even realistically upgraded their transmission power to better serve the entire region (there are a couple in my area alone), but the FCC would have none of that. It had to be a direct conversion according to their formula. Thanks to that fact, my CBS affiliate still doesn't come in reliably... and it's even worse post-transition since digital is all or nothing. If they're going to force yet another frequency change on everyone, they'd better get it right this time. ...But I doubt they will.

This is what happens when lawyers do an engineer's job.
 
JoshTheRadioDude said:
Hear hear!
Click to expand...

You vote absolute morons into office, they appoint absolute morons to positions like the FCC. We got what we deserved. Let's hope the next administration - Democan or Republicrat - does a better job. But I doubt it.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
You vote absolute morons into office, they appoint absolute morons to positions like the FCC. We got what we deserved. Let's hope the next administration - Democan or Republicrat - does a better job. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Plus we're dealing with an administration that is so totally in bed with the telcos, wireless providers and Silicon Valley that there is no way beyond a legal or legislative solution that broadcast television will have a chance survive this next auction. And radio shouldn't be so smug about this. As NAB Pres. Gordon Smith said, "If they can do this to your neighbor, they can do it to you."
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
You vote absolute morons into office, they appoint absolute morons to positions like the FCC. We got what we deserved. Let's hope the next administration - Democan or Republicrat - does a better job. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

This was a staff ruling, which means that it wasn't made by political appointees, but civil servants. Only the Commissioners are appointed, and they weren't involved in this decision..
 
Last edited:
ContinuousWave said:
The title of the thread is: The End of the Ch. 5 & 6 Debate to Expand FM?

so it is but it isnt....
Click to expand...

I know...the subject says one thing, and the OP another, and it's in the wrong board.

The linked article doesn't mention FM at all, and says this about AM:

"This thinking may have relevance in the AM revitalization debate, though as I noted, AM was not mentioned in this case."
 
Last edited:
Okay, before some of us hyper-ventilate and pass out in heap of worry as to whether this topic belongs on the HD Radio board or not, let's take a breather.

Whenever the subject of commandeering VHF channels 5 & 6 for expanding FM (which some consider the answer for saving AM) is brought up, it is always discussed in the context of digital radio. A case in point is an article in the Sept. 10 issue of Radio World "An Outsider's Perspective" (Commentary) in which the author advocates taking VHF channels 2-6 for FM and making them DRM+only stations.

The article I linked to is by RW editor Paul McLane. In it he quotes the following from the FCC's Julius Knapp and draws his conclusions from it:

“Based on data compiled by the Commission’s Media Bureau,” the FCC wrote, “Channel 4 is currently populated by three full-power TV stations, 110 low-power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations, and six Class A TV stations.”

Further, “The Commission also has an ongoing incentive auction proceeding that, among other things, will repurpose a portion of the TV band for broadband operations and repack the remaining TV stations into a smaller frequency range.” That incentive auction, the FCC continued, does not eliminate use of TV Channel 4, and anticipates voluntary options for full-power and Class A TV stations, “including relocation from a UHF channel to a VHF channel and relocation from a high VHF channel (Channels 7–13) to a low VHF channel (Channels 2–6).”… Thus, the commission wrote, Channel 4 could become even more active for broadcast than it is now.

Further, “Even if such an outcome is not realized, there is no reason to expect that full-power, Class A and LPTV stations will not continue to make use of an available television channel,” the commission wrote."

As far as I'm concerned, you can take that to the bank. This is the closest the FCC has come to saying no channel 5-6 for FM--all of the Lo-VHF band will be used for television broadcasting.

Now I would have gladly put this topic on the DRM/DRM+ board, but there isn't any.

As for the FCC not respecting hams, I do know that the Commission has used the research and recommendations of the ARRL in some of its rulings in the past and have acknowledged the usefulness of hams in times of emergency.
 
Last edited:
Carmine5 said:
As for the FCC not respecting hams, I do know that the Commission has used the research and recommendations of the ARRL in some of its rulings in the past and have acknowledged the usefulness of hams in times of emergency.
Click to expand...

They may respect hams, but it was one of the first acts of the FRC that kicked hams off the AM band, and TTBOMK, they've never really done anything to help ham radio.

Given that, it's possible they might act differently with respect to the commercial spectrum. But it seems like they want to get some leadership from the Commissioners before making a decision that could be interpreted as expanding the FM spectrum. There was a similar ruling with regards to translators.
 
Expanding the FM band or relocating AM to channels 5 and 6 was never going to happen. That spectrum was already allocated to hungry wireless providers before TV stations moved. Low VHF was a present to wireless providers in exchange for political support to the right candidates. It might make sense to use low VHF for something else, but since WHEN has something that makes sense ever swayed an FCC full of hopelessly corrupt political appointees who do the bidding of whichever regime appointed them? The public interest? It is defined by the regime in power, and they appoint puppets who bow to their slightest whims.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom