TV Channels 5 & 6 For Digital FM

[Carmine5]

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.

And then we have many lower band VHF stations that migrated to UHF while keeping their virtual channels. KTLA channel 5 in Los Angeles, for example, is actually broadcasting digitally on channel 31 and KCBS channel 2 moved up to channel 43. You'll find this to be the case with many of the full power VHF stations across the country. There are a lot of abandoned or open lower VHF channels due to the DTV transition.

Which is why this is a good time to give serious consideration to the BMC proposal or, if not a digital only band as the proposal outlines, at least expanding FM. One broadcast law firm suggested that LPTV stations that are currently on channels 5 & 6 be allowed to turn in their TV licenses in exchange for FM licenses on the 87 MHz band, thereby clearing the band. In a way this idea makes sense since many of the low power stations on channel 6 have become "Franken FM's" and are already masquerading as radio stations. c5

 

[Ai4i]

I think it would make sense for net affils to adopt nationwide common virtual numbers such as the NYC lineup, 2 for all CBS's, 4 for all NBC's, 5 for all Fox's, etc. Australia has a 7 network and I think a 9 or 10 network even though not all the stations are on those channels.

 

[KeithE4]

I think it would make sense for net affils to adopt nationwide common virtual numbers such as the NYC lineup, 2 for all CBS's, 4 for all NBC's, 5 for all Fox's, etc. Australia has a 7 network and I think a 9 or 10 network even though not all the stations are on those channels.

It wouldn't make sense at all - too much overlap, especially in the northeast and parts of the midwest. If you're in an area that can get more than one network affiliate over the air (for example, central NJ or most of Connecticut), which one would be the channel you want to watch if they all have the same virtual channel number?

I think this idea was proposed early-on and was rejected by the FCC. Besides, folks are used to tuning in certain channels for their TV, which is why virtual channels were invented in the first place.

 

[Ai4i]

Simple solution, they do what two PBS stations in Maryland or DC are doing. One becomes (for example) 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, the second becomes 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, a third could have 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12. Two or more stations can use the same virtual channel number but with different numbers after the dot. This would be sure to totally confuse all the viewers. We like confusion.

 

[spunker88]

It would be interesting to see, since the VHF-L band is pretty much dead here in the states besides for a few DTV channels.

Digital only may be the best way to see if HD Radio can work by giving broadcasters the ability to broadcast digitally at 100% power.

I think 87.7 and 87.9 should be opened up to the regular FM band since there are channel 6 stations already using 87.7 for radio in analog. 87.9 is already used by a few LP stations. These two frequencies are already on pretty much all FM tuners so it wouldn't be that hard to implement.

 

[Carmine5]

Most of us, by now, are aware of Auction 90 which is set to begin on February 15, 2011. The auction for VHF commercial TV stations includes FCC allotment channel 5 for Seaford, DE. The Commission's notice acknowledges the BMC petition and indicates a decision will be reached prior to the auction.

Personally, I believe that because the FCC published the notice and intends to go ahead with auctioning the Delaware allotment, channel 5 is probably out of the picture as for as expanding the FM band is concerned. But channel 6 is still an open question. Will the FCC give it to FM or will they simply reaffirm their commitment to HD Radio and state that the solution to FM band overcrowding is digital radio side-channels? Only time will tell. c5

 

[Ai4i]

Any and all the channels could be shared between FM and TV stations as channels fourteen through twenty have been and continue to be shared between land mobile and TV.

 

[TVradioguru]

All this talk of an expanded FM band, but the problem is one could buy a license at auction, buy all the equipment, transmission, studio, etc., set up shop,(digital or analog) yet nobody is there to listen, potentially for many years.

The problem is nobody is actively buying new radios, nor have they been over the past ten years. Sure there are FM radios included in some IPods, but those purchases aren't being made to buy a radio. Maybe the following year new car line would have the expanded band in the radios, but what market penetration is that? Not much. In the meantime you as a broadcaster in an expanded FM band sit there bleeding money, hoping to hold out ten years? Twenty years? When an expanded band would equal the legacy band for FM? Hmm, I doubt it..

In reality the future growing loss of AM stations will be good for radio. Call it a form of natural selection if you will.. The owners with existing FM locations and the resources will survive to prosper. Those with AM stations or unable to operate a station in a competitive manner will die and fade away. Station counts will be back to reasonable levels with high levels of quality programming that will easily dominate over other forms of media.

 

[Play Freebird]

In reality the future growing loss of AM stations will be good for radio. Call it a form of natural selection if you will.. The owners with existing FM locations and the resources will survive to prosper. Those with AM stations or unable to operate a station in a competitive manner will die and fade away. Station counts will be back to reasonable levels with high levels of quality programming that will easily dominate over other forms of media.

Keep in mind that there are still locations in the US where the present FM band cannot accommodate any more full-service allocations and AM stations provide the only locally-targeted service. In many cases, the existing FM stations have become "rimshots" or move-ins" serving a neighboring large market, leaving an AM to fill the local programming niche.

I'm co-owner of such an AM station and fortunately we found an FM translator that could be moved to our AM site. In our community of license (seat of government of a county of 43,000 people) ours is the only FM station providing line-of-sight coverage (all others diffract over at least two edges and are ridden with multipath in most parts of town) -- and aside from one Class B FM and a non-comm (both operated from studios over 40 miles away), ours is the only one that provides true 60 dBu service downtown based on the Longley-Rice model. We understand that localism is good business, and our listeners and advertisers agree. But we wouldn't be allowed to operate the translator without an associated AM license.

So I take exception to your statement that the growing loss of AM stations due to "natural selection" is necessarily good for radio. Besides, artificial selection (in the form of IBOC interference, RFI from power lines, TV sets, and microprocessors, and harmful FCC policies) is often a bigger threat to AM broadcasters than anything nature can throw our way.

 

[Ai4i]

I'm co-owner of such an AM station...So I take exception to your statement

Would you be expected not to?

 

[tomservo]

The problem is nobody is actively buying new radios, nor have they been over the past ten years. Sure there are FM radios included in some IPods, but those purchases aren't being made to buy a radio. Maybe the following year new car line would have the expanded band in the radios, but what market penetration is that? Not much. In the meantime you as a broadcaster in an expanded FM band sit there bleeding money, hoping to hold out ten years? Twenty years? When an expanded band would equal the legacy band for FM? Hmm, I doubt it..

I can't say this enough: if this concept were to come to fruition, it would NOT happen in one, two or even five years. It's a long term "plan ahead" kind of thing, which admittedly our government is not very good at. The allocation would have to be set aside now, then mandated expanded FM radios for a future date, THEN the process of populating the channels would begin.

Look at how the AM expanded band was created. The concept dated back quite a ways, and radios were mandated to include the new frequencies several years before the auction opened up. There was another period of time (one or two years?) before stations began showing up on the new expanded band. IIRC it was a decade or so between "we're gonna do this" and "stations coming on air".

The FCC could easily mandate that the new band would be analog with HD optional, with different guard rules for adjacent channels to mitigate the problems some people have now with first-adjacent reception.

 

[TVradioguru]

I suppose if you gave the AM guys first crack at an expanded FM band with the requirements that they had to vacate their AM channel by a certain date maybe the idea would work to a limited extent. The problem is how many AM broadcasters could afford to build out a station on the new FM band, then operate it for an finite period of time, only to find out there are few listeners there.

 

[Chuck]

I suppose if you gave the AM guys first crack at an expanded FM band with the requirements that they had to vacate their AM channel by a certain date maybe the idea would work to a limited extent. The problem is how many AM broadcasters could afford to build out a station on the new FM band, then operate it for an finite period of time, only to find out there are few listeners there.

If they didn't mandate the Ibiquity digital system, it wouldn't cost very much. Generally speaking, a 250-watt translator has equal or better coverage than a 1000 watt AM station. You can build one of those for around $5000. Unless you had to build a new tower, it would be hard (but not impossible)) to spend much over $10,000 on equipment. I think most AM operators would think that is a good deal.

 

[Carmine5]

I suppose if you gave the AM guys first crack at an expanded FM band with the requirements that they had to vacate their AM channel by a certain date maybe the idea would work to a limited extent. The problem is how many AM broadcasters could afford to build out a station on the new FM band, then operate it for an finite period of time, only to find out there are few listeners there.

I think it's premature to dismiss this idea as unworkable before it is even decided on, let alone implemented. It could very well be a situation similar to expanded band AM in which stations that opted for a license on the x-band were allowed to keep their existing channel for 5 years (and even beyond that) as audiences migrated over.

I'm less sure about the wisdom of x-band FM being digital only, particularly if FM radio comes to more handheld devices. Digital may be more bandwidth efficient but it is certainly more processor-intensive, more power-hungry on the receive side and it will no doubt require an iBiquity-licensed chip. We know the iPod Nano has FM as does the new Motorola Droid X. But they are analog FM. I'm thinking that once cellphone makers get past their loathing of putting radio in their products they will more than likely build into them analog FM, at least in the short term and maybe even for a long while.

 

[Play Freebird]

I suppose if you gave the AM guys first crack at an expanded FM band with the requirements that they had to vacate their AM channel by a certain date maybe the idea would work to a limited extent. The problem is how many AM broadcasters could afford to build out a station on the new FM band, then operate it for an finite period of time, only to find out there are few listeners there.

I would be happy if a transition plan with the following provisions were adopted:

1) All AM stations are given an automatic digital assignment in the 76-88 MHz expanded band, as proposed in the BMC petition

2) The digital system is "open source" (such as DRM+) and provides at least 96 kbps on the main audio channel

3) The digital system supports on-channel synchronous boosters to fill in terrain-shadowed areas and urban canyons.

4) As a "quid pro quo" for this new spectrum, licensees would offer public safety/Homeland Security/NOAA Weather free unlimited use of voice-grade and data subchannels for public emergency messaging. However, these agencies would be solely responsible for originating content and sending it to our transmitter site(s); we would just multiplex it into our data streams, providing the "last mile" to members of the public. This would save taxpayers many millions of dollars as opposed to these agencies constructing their own radio transmission facilities.

5) New mobile and cellular sets would be required to receive these digital signals. The receivers would monitor the public emergency data channels in the background and only trigger on alert messages relevant to the user based on his or her current GPS position. Eventually, this would eliminate the need to interrupt main channel programming with EAS alerts.

6) Our AM transmitters and FM translators would be allowed to remain in operation until at least 85% of the registered vehicles and mobile phones were equipped with 76-88 MHz reception capability. However, any licensee would have the option of turning off the AM before the mandated date.

 

[Savage]

An excellent plan, Freebird. And I would add the following in the interim (until the 85% receiver threshold is reached):

IBOC on AM is discontinued, and AM stations are permitted to drop NRSC limiting and pre-emphasis and return to (relatively) flat response as in pre-1990. Channel bandwidth is permitted to 12.5 kHz daytime and 10 kHz nighttime, with the caveat that if an adjacent channel station files a good-faith interference complaint, that daytime transmissions will be limited to the lesser of (a) 10 kHz or (b) bandwidth sufficiently narrowed to satisfy the complainant.

As is currently the case, AM stations may use C-QUAM if they wish.

 

[Tom Wells]

An excellent plan, Freebird. And I would add the following in the interim (until the 85% receiver threshold is reached):

IBOC on AM is discontinued, and AM stations are permitted to drop NRSC limiting and pre-emphasis and return to (relatively) flat response as in pre-1990. Channel bandwidth is permitted to 12.5 kHz daytime and 10 kHz nighttime, with the caveat that if an adjacent channel station files a good-faith interference complaint, that daytime transmissions will be limited to the lesser of (a) 10 kHz or (b) bandwidth sufficiently narrowed to satisfy the complainant.

As is currently the case, AM stations may use C-QUAM if they wish.

As existing AMs drop off the band in preference for the expanded FM band, a plan for "Meaningful" AM microcast needs to be
developed, 1 watt, 10 m antenna, rigourous proofs and proper examination of nearest neighbors.

I've got a huge audience within 1 mile, the above limits would allow me to serve over 100,000 listeners.
I'd be happy to cut back to the present 100mw at night. (Outta here in 3 blocks)
I'd be happy if it were only daytimer, and LOTS of stations had to go back to sunrise/sunset.
Just so when I turn the knob across the dial, I have, darn near every 10 or 20 khz, a usable. listenable, enjoyable choice
from a CLEAR, a REGIONAL, or a LOCAL, as it worked so well for 3/4 of my life.

As opposed to now, where I tune across local, 5 noise and mushes, a local, mush, a dx, mush, splattered dx, local,
GODAFWUL HISS, ditto, mushy iboc local, G.A. hiss ,3 mushed dx, clear canadian (hey!), mushed dx, splattered dx, LOCAL.
The purpose of the FCC was to provide that not nearly as many of the above noted useless frequecies exist.

Someone's got to start turning off truly useless yap and drivel.

I'd suggest that if you want to stay on a cluttered frequency at night, you need to be a "content provider" in first terms,
NOT using anyone's net signal, and have live bodies preferency THREE at THREE AM to make it serious.

There's plenty of ESPN out there already.

I know everyone thinks they should 24/7 but try to look up the info regarding the arguments in '27 or whenever the FRC came into being regulating ay night. The issue was not dx, per se as this was accepted as unchangable, and REQUIRED
that there be daytimers only. This made the dial as described above, mostly usable signals, except perhaps those splattered
locally. It was a very good plan, and best utilized the peculiar advantages of MW, day vs night.

Our modern ,persistant willful ignorance of analog/comparative advantages is, as always, anymores, our downfall....

It MUST BE DIGITAL OR DIE!

 

[Ai4i]

Forget about gr8 sounding music on AM, the receivers will not happen, but we would like to see an expansion of part 15, perhaps a few watts with no antenna restriction. Remember, when the government first began regulating radio, their were first amendment opponents. New Zealand allows private citizens (subjects?) to transmit with 600mw on FM, I don't know if that is transmitter input, output, ERP, or hight restricted, but their range and quieting can be respectable.

 

[TVradioguru]

6) Our AM transmitters and FM translators would be allowed to remain in operation until at least 85% of the registered vehicles and mobile phones were equipped with 76-88 MHz reception capability. However, any licensee would have the option of turning off the AM before the mandated date.

I'm not sure why you'd want to keep the AM transmitters up, given by that time AM listening will be degraded to the extent you may not be able to cover the utility expenses, let alone an FM stick too.

The 85% migration rule was tried during the DTV transition. Back in 1998 when it was announced that DTV would be mandatory, the rules stated that stations were required to discontinue use of their analog channels by 2006 or when 85% of the receivers owned were digital, whichever came first. The FCC ruled in 2004, that 85% level had indeed been reached. Many of us were scratching out heads trying to figure out where the commission made the leap that 85% of viewers had already made the transition. Eventually cooler heads prevailed and the FCC then began just setting date deadlines; first the original 2006, then revised to 2009. In the meantime, broadcasters made the painful investments of their technical and transmission gear to hit the government imposed deadlines.

Speaking from a purely business perspective, I'm not sure how many AM-specific broadcasters could hold out with the operating and capital investments on a band that may take many years to reach par with other legacy FM broadcasters. Chances are there will be deadlines set and then delays which will be the financial undoing of many a broadcaster.

The expanded AM band was a total joke. The coverage was poor at that end of the dial and nobody to this day has had success with any of those stations.

Finally, I doubt Congress nor the FCC would consider acting on expanding a legacy media form unless two specific things happenned:

1. Spectrum on the new band would be only available at auction. (It's all about bringing in money)
2. Addition of the new band would be done under the guise of advancing the medium, ie, digital. If the interest is to just put more "analog" legacy media stations on the air, then this idea is as dead as Elvis. In the eyes of politicians and bankers these days; Analog= 'not modern'. Traditional radio= 'antiquated'.

 

[Carmine5]

6) Our AM transmitters and FM translators would be allowed to remain in operation until at least 85% of the registered vehicles and mobile phones were equipped with 76-88 MHz reception capability. However, any licensee would have the option of turning off the AM before the mandated date.

Finally, I doubt Congress nor the FCC would consider acting on expanding a legacy media form unless two specific things happenned:

1. Spectrum on the new band would be only available at auction. (It's all about bringing in money)
2. Addition of the new band would be done under the guise of advancing the medium, ie, digital. If the interest is to just put more "analog" legacy media stations on the air, then this idea is as dead as Elvis. In the eyes of politicians and bankers these days; Analog= 'not modern'. Traditional radio= 'antiquated'.

Undoubtedly an auction, but I'm not convinced that legislators would place a digital-only stipulation, especially if the NAB/PRA compromise becomes a reality and FM chips are mandated for cellphones. That means a whole bunch of new broadcasters on the 87 MHz band won't be heard on these hand-held devices which are sure to have analog-only radio. If anything is going to impede profitability on expanded-band FM it would be a digital-only mandate. Plus, if LPFMs are to share space on the 87 band, most will not be able to afford to invest in digital equipment or pay any royalty fees.

The BMC proposal calls for DRM+ but we know that won't happen and I'm sure the committee did too even as they were writing it into their proposal. No, if the fate of VHF channel 6 is that it be part of the FM band, it will be more of the same; analog and HD Radio.