Time to expand FM

[gr8oldies]

I don't forsee any move to create new analog frequencies, anywhere.


> > > They are already losing channels 2 through 12, that's
> why
> > > the DTV signals start at channel 13.
> >
> > This is wrong.
> >
> > The spectrum that is being retained for digital TV is
> > channels 2 through 51, with channels 52 through 69 being
> > reassigned for other uses.
> >
> > Due to interference concerns, few stations are opting to
> > remain on the lower VHF band (channels 2 through 6) after
> > the digital transition, but there will still be many, many
>
> > digital TV stations on the VHF high band (7 through 13).
>
> So there you have it... force TV to move up above 6, and
> drop the lower end of the FM band accordingly. Makes
> perfect sense to me.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"There ain't no reason to fight over a woman. There's two more down the street!".."Senisble Don", 700 WLW</P>

 

[KMRichards]

> I don't forsee any move to create new analog frequencies,
> anywhere.

No more analog TV channels, of course. But the scheme below makes perfect sense. My sense is that most of the low-V DTV stations have chosen those channels just to comply with the FCC requirement to choose, but will request a move to high-V once everyone else has made their choices.

WBBM-DT in Chicago is an excellent example of why low-V is a bad place to operate a DTV.

Presuming low-V does get abandoned (or the FCC sees so few stations there it makes them move), there is going to be little demand for the vacated spectrum, but -- as has been proven in Japan -- it's perfect for a larger FM band.

> > > The spectrum that is being retained for digital TV is
> > > channels 2 through 51, with channels 52 through 69 being
> > > reassigned for other uses.
> > >
> > > Due to interference concerns, few stations are opting to
> > > remain on the lower VHF band (channels 2 through 6) after
> > > the digital transition, but there will still be many, many
> > > digital TV stations on the VHF high band (7 through 13).
>
> > So there you have it... force TV to move up above 6, and
> > drop the lower end of the FM band accordingly. Makes
> > perfect sense to me.
> >
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[dave73]

> I think it had very little to do with LBJ's clout.
> Proximity meant that channels that were assigned in Austin
> couldn't be used in Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio,
> or Waco/Temple. Since Austin wasn't really a very big town
> in 1952 when the FCC was finalizing it's table of
> allotments, it isn't surprising that Austin didn't get more
> than one of those prime VHF allotments.
>
> From what I've read, LBJ's clout did come in handy for
> assuring that his was his wife that would win the
> construction permit for that one VHF allotment in Austin.
>
> Oh, and channel 7 in Austin hasn't had the KLBJ call letters
> in over thirty years. It has been KTBC since Lady Bird sold
> the station to Times Mirror in 1973. But the KLBJ call
> letters did live on in the AM and FM radio stations that had
> been commonly owned with channel 7 until the Times Mirror
> sale.
>
How about looking at South Bend Indiana, where there isn't a single VHF station. Their lowest channel is 16 and their channel lineup is:
16 WNDU (NBC)
22 WSBT (CBS)
25 WMWB-LP (WB)
28 WSJV (FOX)
34 WNIT (PBS)
46 WHME (IND-Religious)
57 WBND-LP (ABC)
69 WAAT-LP (IND)

I don't remember what their channel lineup will be once NTSC is gone, but I do know Weigel will have to get new channels for 57 & 69, and 28 will remain the same since their digital is 58 (which bumped WBND-LP to 57), and 28 will go ND (currently directional), knocking a LP station in Chicago off 28 since they use the -LP suffix on their calls.

 

[dave73]

> > I don't forsee any move to create new analog frequencies,
> > anywhere.
>
> No more analog TV channels, of course. But the scheme below
> makes perfect sense. My sense is that most of the low-V DTV
> stations have chosen those channels just to comply with the
> FCC requirement to choose, but will request a move to high-V
> once everyone else has made their choices.
>
> WBBM-DT in Chicago is an excellent example of why low-V is a
> bad place to operate a DTV.
>
> Presuming low-V does get abandoned (or the FCC sees so few
> stations there it makes them move), there is going to be
> little demand for the vacated spectrum, but -- as has been
> proven in Japan -- it's perfect for a larger FM band.
>
I know for a fact that before the ch 3 in Kalamazoo Michigan signed on ch 2 for digital, WBBM-TV 2 was ok for viewing. Since Ch 3 in Michigan started broadcasting on DT-2, WBBM-TV has been difficult to view these days, and heard the same thing in Michigan with WBBM-DT-3 interfering with the Ch 3 over there. WTTW is vacating ch 11 once analog is shut off, and WBBM-YV applied for ch 11 once WTTW goes to UHF-47 fulltime. But WBBM-TV will have far less coverage than WTTW does now because WLFI-18 in Lafayette Indiana has their digital on 11 and is staying on 11 after the transition. But with WGN vacating their VHF too after the transition, maybe Univision might try to grab 9 since they're losing both their analog and digital channels for their Univision and Telefutura networks on 60 & 66 (don't remember their digital channels, but they're in the upper 50's).

 

[houstonradiogeek]

> >
> I know for a fact that before the ch 3 in Kalamazoo Michigan
> signed on ch 2 for digital, WBBM-TV 2 was ok for viewing.
> Since Ch 3 in Michigan started broadcasting on DT-2, WBBM-TV
> has been difficult to view these days, and heard the same
> thing in Michigan with WBBM-DT-3 interfering with the Ch 3
> over there. WTTW is vacating ch 11 once analog is shut off,
> and WBBM-YV applied for ch 11 once WTTW goes to UHF-47
> fulltime. But WBBM-TV will have far less coverage than WTTW
> does now because WLFI-18 in Lafayette Indiana has their
> digital on 11 and is staying on 11 after the transition.
> But with WGN vacating their VHF too after the transition,
> maybe Univision might try to grab 9 since they're losing
> both their analog and digital channels for their Univision
> and Telefutura networks on 60 & 66 (don't remember their
> digital channels, but they're in the upper 50's).
>

Excuse me for butting in but... what a mess...<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>

 

[houstonradiogeek]

> WBBM-DT in Chicago is an excellent example of why low-V is a
> bad place to operate a DTV.

Are there any photos or movies posted online showing this?

Just curious, as I donj;t own a dtv receiver, and probably won't in a long time.<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>

 

[houstonradiogeek]

> How about this for reallocating those channels:
> Channel 2: Amateur radio, expanding the 6-meter ham band to
> 50-60 MHz.
> Channels 3 & 4: Public safety, fixed/mobile.
> Channels 5 & 6: FM broadcasting, with LPFM at 76-82 MHz,
> non-commercial FM 82-90 MHz, and commercial FM at 90-108
> MHz.
>

I wish people like you were in charge at the FCC.

<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by houstonradiogeek on 06/19/05 02:18 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[KMRichards]

> > WBBM-DT in Chicago is an excellent example of why low-V is
> a
> > bad place to operate a DTV.
>
> Are there any photos or movies posted online showing this?
>
> Just curious, as I donj;t own a dtv receiver, and probably
> won't in a long time.

Start at this post here on R-I and follow the instructions:
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=235015&Board=tv-usa>http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=235015&Board=tv-usa</a>
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[TheDingo]

> > I think it had very little to do with LBJ's clout.
> > Proximity meant that channels that were assigned in Austin
>
> > couldn't be used in Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San
> Antonio,
> > or Waco/Temple. Since Austin wasn't really a very big
> town
> > in 1952 when the FCC was finalizing it's table of
> > allotments, it isn't surprising that Austin didn't get
> more
> > than one of those prime VHF allotments.
> >
> > From what I've read, LBJ's clout did come in handy for
> > assuring that his was his wife that would win the
> > construction permit for that one VHF allotment in Austin.
> >
> > Oh, and channel 7 in Austin hasn't had the KLBJ call
> letters
> > in over thirty years. It has been KTBC since Lady Bird
> sold
> > the station to Times Mirror in 1973. But the KLBJ call
> > letters did live on in the AM and FM radio stations that
> had
> > been commonly owned with channel 7 until the Times Mirror
> > sale.
> >
> How about looking at South Bend Indiana, where there isn't a
> single VHF station. Their lowest channel is 16 and their
> channel lineup is:
> 16 WNDU (NBC)
> 22 WSBT (CBS)
> 25 WMWB-LP (WB)
> 28 WSJV (FOX)
> 34 WNIT (PBS)
> 46 WHME (IND-Religious)
> 57 WBND-LP (ABC)
> 69 WAAT-LP (IND)
>
> I don't remember what their channel lineup will be once NTSC
> is gone, but I do know Weigel will have to get new channels
> for 57 & 69, and 28 will remain the same since their digital
> is 58 (which bumped WBND-LP to 57), and 28 will go ND
> (currently directional), knocking a LP station in Chicago
> off 28 since they use the -LP suffix on their calls.
>

Huntsville AL is the same way with the exception of WTZT-LP on channel 11 (formerly on 28) of Athens

WTZT-LP 11 (IND)
WHDF 15 (UPN)
WHNT 19 (CBS)
WHIQ 25 (PBS)
WAAY 31 (ABC)
WAFF 48 (NBC)
WZDX 54 (FOX)
<P ID="signature">______________
<div align="center"><a href="http://937thewolf.tk">

</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Folks, this is starting to turn into a discussion of television channel allocations instead of the potential to expand FM.

Back on-topic, please?
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Austin TX & LBJ

You may be right about the 40's and 50's. I have been in Austin for sixteen years and have not watched television. LBJ did his thing in congress/Senate but he did block channels. He kicked new stations up to UHF.

I live in South Austin, about 75 miles from San Antonio and I can not get any of their TV stations (the few times I watched TV). I could not get Philadelphia TV when I grew up in Brooklyn, 90 miles away either. I was only able to dx on AM radio and I did .



> > As an aside, it would not be much problem here in Austin.
>
> > We still only have one station below channel 14, thanks to
>
> > the efforts of our representative Lyndon Johnson in the
> > sixties. That station is channel 7 and their call letters
> > are still KLBJ!
>
> Sixties? Don't you mean '40s & '50s? He was in the House
> from 1937 to 1949 and the Senate from 1949 to 1961. Did he
> block any channel allocations while he was in the White
> House?
>
> Also, isn't Austin close enough to San Antonio to get their
> Channels 4 & 5, plus the UPN station in between them on Ch.
> 2, as well as the San Antonio FMs?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[KMRichards]

ONE MORE TIME ...

Please, everyone, get this thread back on-topic. This is the national <u>radio</u> board, not television.

If the off-topic posts continue, the thread will be closed.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[-TJ-]

> Nope, it won't happen right above 107.9 because you get into
> the aviation band.

<font color=3333ff>In case you missed it, i DID say move (the aviation band) up.

Or expanding FM lower would work too : )

Anything to get a larger FM radio band.


</font>

 

[jason97]

> > Nope, it won't happen right above 107.9 because you get
> into
> > the aviation band.
>
> In case you missed it, i DID say move (the aviation band)
> up.

The aviation band has nowhere to move up to.

> Or expanding FM lower would work too : )

As said before, TV channel 6, and maybe 5 as well, would go away.

> Anything to get a larger FM radio band.

I like that idea, too, I doubt it will happen. But, if it does, I think it would be great if the band went from 76-108 MHz. Couple of issues though:

Let's say Corporate MegaConglomo Broadcasting owns channel 6, and were actually planning on using that after the digital TV changeover, so now they have to re-think their plans. Would they demand the FCC say they are still the license holders of what would become 82-88 FM? If so, you could fit 7 FM stations within that space. Same thing for anyone with a channel 5 with 76-82. Would they then have an instant radio cluster in the market, or forced to sell? Please, keep all comments on this related to radio - I don't want to see this thread locked, either, there's been some great radio discussion here.

And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this start a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?<P ID="signature">______________
"Oregon, welcome to California!" - Bob Barker
Moderator at <a target="_blank" href=http://freedomlist.com/>Freedomlist</a> (not radio related)</P>

 

[Mediabrat]

> Let's say Corporate MegaConglomo Broadcasting owns channel
> 6, and were actually planning on using that after the
> digital TV changeover, so now they have to re-think their
> plans. Would they demand the FCC say they are still the
> license holders of what would become 82-88 FM? If so, you
> could fit 7 FM stations within that space. Same thing for
> anyone with a channel 5 with 76-82. Would they then have an
> instant radio cluster in the market, or forced to sell?

I imagine it would work just like the planned elimination of channels over 51. The FCC would say that TV channels 2 through 6 are now out of core and that anyone currently using those channels must move or turn in their license.

> And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this start
> a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and
> not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. There are far too many tiny AM operations whose signals are useless beyond their transmitter sites, especially at night. If the expansion of the FM band will help relieve the overcrowding of the AM band, go for it.

 

[jason97]

Re: moving AM stations to FM

> > And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this
> start
> > a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and
> > not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?
>
> Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
> There are far too many tiny AM operations whose signals are
> useless beyond their transmitter sites, especially at night.
> If the expansion of the FM band will help relieve the
> overcrowding of the AM band, go for it.

This is actually something I agree with, too, which is why I brought it up.

Here's my idea:
AM stations would be allowed to move to the new FM band, priority given as follows:
1. Daytime-only stations
2. stations broadcasting with less than 1,000 watts nighttime power
3. stations broadcasting with *exactly* 1,000 watts nighttime power
4. everyone else, except
5. The former "clear channel" AM stations (meaning 50kw, not the ones run by the company CC) would be forbidden to move to FM.

Then, a new changes to AM: no more AM licenses with less than 1,000 watts of nighttime power.

I think this would probably directly reduce a lot of the interference that AM has today, but will it ever happen... my guess is no.<P ID="signature">______________
"Oregon, welcome to California!" - Bob Barker
Moderator at <a target="_blank" href=http://freedomlist.com/>Freedomlist</a> (not radio related)</P>