TV Channels 5 & 6 For Digital FM

[WPPCProductions]

I understand about some tuners will tune to ch5 and ch6 freqs,now the radio needs to decode the digital information to analog in order to receive.Will they try to use the current HD radio decoding technique or brew up another to work.

 

[K6JHU]

Don't need to 'brew up' anyhting. We already have Eurkea 147 and DRM. DRM is already an FCC approved standard for SW.

 

[Len14043]

The idea on making the 76-87 MHZ band available for all-digital broadcasting make a tremendous amount of sense. Lets say a station on 103.5 as an example wants to broadcast in digital, instead of having sidebands on 103.3 and 103.7, they could broadcast an all-digital signal on the lower band. The digital radio could have circuitry that could automatically default to a digital signal like 77.1 MHZ as an example. The digital frequency would be transparent to the user in that they would merely tune the radio to the analog signal at 103.5. I believe DTV works in a similar manner. This would allow digital radio to flourish to its full potential, while avoiding the issue of adjacent channel interference. As another poster here stated, 10kw digital signal would blanket a city-especially if the digital doesn't have to compete with an analog co-channel signal. This make too much sense and I doubt it will see the light of day, but we can all hope.

 

[Chuck]

Also, the Commission has been floating the idea of making broadcasters pay for their spectrum.

Well, they are not "floating around." They are real and right now. I just paid my "FCC Regulatory Fee," which is due from all commercial broadcasters on Aug 31. Now, they may be thinking of raising them. In fact, I believe they are, but currently commercial broadcasters pay an annual fee for their spectrum. NCE’s are exempt, at least, so far.

 

[audioguy]

Currently, broadcasters pay only an administrative license fee, not a fee based on the market value of the spectrum. That is what the FCC is considering.

 

[tomservo]

I believe that current HD Radios receive full digital signals.

Do any of the HD radios tune below 87.5 MHz? That's the problem we have now. The HD radios can decode full digital but don't go below 87.5. Some analog radios tune down to 76 MHz but don't do digital.

 

[Play Freebird]

Today's opinion on the continued viability of FM:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/earth-to-tech-bloggers-fm-lives.ars

I would agree that modern FM equipment provides a very efficient way to reach a local audience.

Transmitters have become very reliable, and at lower power levels they have fallen greatly in price. For example, in 1968, a Gates FM-1H sold for $7000 and a 250H listed at $5750. Over 40 years later, you can find good quality offerings at these power ratings at an even lower cost (in inflated 2010 dollars), and you won't need to replace the tubes every couple of years. And FM receivers have also fallen greatly in price, not to mention they now fit on a power-efficient chip and can be found in almost every vehicle manufactured in the past 20 years.

To put an FM station on the air, there's no need for a large ground system and a lot of real estate and no real issues with skywave, pattern changes, DA maintenance, etc. No need for diversity delay, pre-delay headphone feeds, digital STLs, etc.

As a testament to FM's success, I just received the most recent edition of Bruce Elving's FM Atlas, now with 288 pages. The oldest copy in my library (published in 1973) has only 80 pages.

It's also interesting to see how FM broadcasting has taken hold around the world in the past several decades. You can browse the listings here: http://www.fmlist.org/ul_login.php?sprache=en

But this map tells the story quite well in graphic detail: http://www.fmscan.org/coverage.php?band=fm

The world owes a lot to Major Armstrong - it's a crime that Big Business was allowed to drive him to his death.

 

[mmnassour]

The world owes a lot to Major Armstrong - it's a crime that Big Business was allowed to drive him to his death.

Hear! Hear!

This needs repeating over and over again.

 

[Tom Wells]

If only we'd been able to keep the system in the OLD FM band as well as the new one.

To those who enjoy listening to major market signals for hundreds of miles while driving around, or the choices that
can become available when stations take advantage of skywave signals with unique compelling programming, the current FM
situation is less useful. I do not enjoy searching for new FM choices every 15-30 minutes when on the highway.

When I am "King", , the more unique and original the programmng is on a station, the more power and HAAT you
are entitled to. An AM station could "shut down" a satellite repeater AM 2 states away by virtue of serving the unserved needs of the public. We don't need more sports yap, but if you want to run a Cajun music format, you get 50 kw ND, and
you could require all others on that frequency to become daytimers .
This would help return the function of radio into serving the public first, not the licensee's wallet.
The "market" is whoever can hear the signal, unrestrained by anything other than the laws of physics.
Sorry, I think like an engineer, not a business person. I've been ***ewed by "businesses" for far too long to have much respect
for such fuzzy concepts that do not behave in the predicatable way the laws of physics provides for.

 

[badjef]

Any new, or expanded, "FM" band will meet with resistance because of increased competition. If the trends to different technologies and listening habits continue, the traditional broadcaster pie will be increasingly smaller. As a result, the profit margins will shrink even further.
A big part of the reason we see these automated and syndicated stations is because the government was involved in the limit of ownership. By the time they corrected it, the gold rush was on and the prices skyrocketed to 18 times the price.
If there is an expanded band to FM, below 88.1, there will be added I.F. Issues to address as well as wave propagation and the proper vehicle for modulation/encoding. Not to mention there is a Public Service band sandwiched between 4&5 - interference there will not be tolerated.
It is just not as easy as opening up the band.
It was suggested that the radio default to the new digital frequency when possible. I submit to you, there would be an echo at best. A constant switching between the two at worst leading to a listener turn-out towards another choice of vehicle, I.e.: internet/iPhone/iPod listening.
You can't just throw it out there. You will lose whatever listeners are left.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[satech]

But this map tells the story quite well in graphic detail: http://www.fmscan.org/coverage.php?band=fm

Considering their huge population, the lack of dots covering China is interesting. Do they still mostly listen to AM & shortwave there? Or does the majority of the rural population simply not own a radio?

 

[Play Freebird]

But this map tells the story quite well in graphic detail: http://www.fmscan.org/coverage.php?band=fm

Considering their huge population, the lack of dots covering China is interesting. Do they still mostly listen to AM & shortwave there? Or does the majority of the rural population simply not own a radio?

I suspect there are many more FM stations in China than the few which the keepers of the "FM SCAN" website have been made aware of. The same situation probably applies in Africa, where some rural community stations may not even require formal licensing. Telecommunications rules set forth by various administrations differ greatly throughout the world.

For example -- in Italy, FM broadcasting has been deregulated to a large extent, allowing thousands of privately-owned stations on the air. When I visited Rome a few years ago, the number of signals I could receive on my analog-tuned Walkman was quite surprising; some are separated by only 100 or 200 kHz. I guess anyone can try to find a semi-vacant spot and go at it. Wikipedia has compiled an unofficial list -- and these are just the licensed stations in Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Rome

Now, would FM IBOC have any chance of working in that kind of environment?

By the way, the Roman "antenna farm" atop Monte Cavo looks like an interesting place to visit -- Marconi would be proud:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/The_structure_on_the_top_of_Monte_Cavo_100.jpg

More photos here, see "Trasmettitori di Monte Cavo"

http://radiomap.eu/it/roma.htm

 

[semoochie]

It looks like it would depend on the width of the channels. Clearly, they can't be 200Khz wide.

 

[Carmine5]

Any new, or expanded, "FM" band will meet with resistance because of increased competition. If the trends to different technologies and listening habits continue, the traditional broadcaster pie will be increasingly smaller. As a result, the profit margins will shrink even further.
A big part of the reason we see these automated and syndicated stations is because the government was involved in the limit of ownership. By the time they corrected it, the gold rush was on and the prices skyrocketed to 18 times the price.
If there is an expanded band to FM, below 88.1, there will be added I.F. Issues to address as well as wave propagation and the proper vehicle for modulation/encoding. Not to mention there is a Public Service band sandwiched between 4&5 - interference there will not be tolerated.
It is just not as easy as opening up the band.
It was suggested that the radio default to the new digital frequency when possible. I submit to you, there would be an echo at best. A constant switching between the two at worst leading to a listener turn-out towards another choice of vehicle, I.e.: internet/iPhone/iPod listening.
You can't just throw it out there. You will lose whatever listeners are left.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

I'm thinking that if FM really should come to all cellphones that this could be a boon for AM. After all, last I checked, AM station owners were radio broadcasters too but there doesn't seem to be any room at the inn for them as far as cellphones are concerned. Plus more and more AM stations are simulcasting their signals on FM and/or leaving the AM band anyway.

I initially brought up this topic because several LDTV applicants were wondering why no action had been taken on their applications. The FCC never formally announced that they were holding up applications for channels 5 & 6 until this proposal was decided on. But there have been at least two emails that I know of from the Commission to individuals stating that this is the case. This means that the proposal will definitely be on the FCC's agenda in the near future.

I'm probably one of the few who work in television who thinks giving these channels over to FM might be a good idea. Broadcast TV's future is undoubtedly mobile DTV and tests so far show that it doesn't work reliably on the lower VHF band. So why not give it to radio, especially if TV broadcasters can use it as a bargaining chip for keeping the government's hands off of the UHF band where mobile DTV works very well. c5

 

[audioguy]

Even the high-band V's don't work that well for DTV. At my summer home in SW Michigan, I've only got intermittent reception of the networks since the switchover. In analog, they were always watchable. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't stand watching a station that is constantly breaking up. DTV is hideous in rural areas. Definitely not as reliable as analog-- and the same is true for radio.

 

[tomservo]

I seem to be one of the few with the opposite experience of many other people.

Before the digital switchover, I got two networks (NBC on 9, PBS on 18) from two markets and one LPTV network (FamilyNet on 13) locally.

Now, I get ABC HD from two different markets, Fox SD, NBC HD and FamilyNet on VHF-hi, and PBS HD, plus PBS Create. So I really came out ahead. The ABC affiliate formerly broadcast on channel 6, and I got zero signal at all due to local interference issues. But once on UHF with a million watts, they often peg the signal strength meter.

The VHF-hi works well enough except when a TV station might be needed most, during thunderstorms. The lightning causes constant breakups, which can make the otherwise strong signal all but unwatchable.

Frankly, I don't see why we can't abandon all VHF TV broadcasting like they did in the UK. We certainly have the spectrum.

 

[Ai4i]

I seem to be one of the few with the opposite experience of many other people.

Nice to have all these additonal "subchannels", too. Keep in mind, many stations fit onto more advantageous perches. The NBC station in Miami went from being a rimshot signal to having a fully competative signal. Anyone know if the same happened with that rimshot net affil from San Jose that serves the San Francisco market?

 

[DaveBayArea]

Anyone know if the same happened with that rimshot net affil from San Jose that serves the San Francisco market?

Yes, KNTV went from transmitting on Loma Prieta (South of San Jose) to Mt. San Bruno several years ago. Of course, the City of License lost a signal that you could pick up anywhere (with minimal or no antenna) but that's not really an issue in these days of digital TV. There were two big advantages for them in this move. First, they obviously got their transmitter closer to the center of the market. Second, most of the rooftop antennas were already aimed at Mt. Sutro. So even when they were analog, the signal became much better (no ghosts, etc) even in San Jose.

San Francisco currently has two high-band digital allocations, ABC and NBC. The rest are UHF. I've heard reports of the UHF channels working better to rabbit-ear antennas right in The City (in buildings, etc) where you would expect UHF to be better. But I haven't noticed a big difference with a rooftop antenna.

We have a home in the Sierras, and the opposite is true. There is terrain shielding between us and the transmitters (about 60 miles away) and the UHF is sketchy at best. The high-band VHF channel (only one in this case - the PBS from Sacramento) is solid, however. Fortunately, I like Nova.

Dave B.

 

[kenglish]

But this map tells the story quite well in graphic detail: http://www.fmscan.org/coverage.php?band=fm

Considering their huge population, the lack of dots covering China is interesting. Do they still mostly listen to AM & shortwave there? Or does the majority of the rural population simply not own a radio?

I've read some interesting articles that say much of Africa and Asia is ripe for shortwave broadcasts...funny how only a few religious broadcasters still believe there's an audience in the west. Many villages only have access to shortwave broadcasts, often with only a single receiver.
HCJB (Quito, Ecuador), the biggest religious broadcaster, has moved their entire operation to Australia, where they can easily beam in to China.

 

[Ai4i]

I've read some interesting articles that say much of Africa and Asia is ripe for shortwave broadcasts...HCJB...has moved their entire operation to Australia, where they can easily beam in to China.

I thought HCJB had abandoned shortwave, favoring LPFM's all over the world. As shortwave stations go, their audio was superb.
I shared Noah Samarah's collapsed satrad dream, but would have preferred a two tier approach, one free level and one subscription. Time for DRM!