TV Channels 5 & 6 For Digital FM

[tomservo]

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.

I disagree. The joke was the FCC reneging on their requirement to shut down the "parent" station to lessen interference.

There are quite a few expanded band stations now and I'm positive than some make money. I hear enough ads on Iowa City's KCJJ (still playing music in stereo, I might add) that I am sure they are doing OK. There's a talk radio station in Pensacola that's doing OK from what I hear, surely there are many others.

 

[davideduardo]

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.

There might be an exception or two.

The 1650 in LA came from Saul Levine´s clevery conversion of the Costa Mesa station on 540 (broadcasting from the other side of the faultline, no less) to an X Bander which is now KFOX. He sold it for $30 million. Today, in Korean, it is reported to be making decent money, but probably not enough to justify the investment.

I'm trying to think of a second X Bander that is successful and the closest I come is the Regional Mexican formatted station in Orlando... where most of the Hispanic market is from the Caribbean.

The Korean formatted WWRU in New York bills about $2.5 million, and WVON does $1.5. College Station and Omaha are the only others with any real revenue out of 54 station I see listed as on the air on the extended band.

 

[Ai4i]

When all the graveyard channel stations simultaneously (sp?) increased their night time power their mutual interferrence remained the same but they produced stronger signals in their markets. For the same reason, X-band stations should not be required to reduce power @ night.

 

[Savage]

If the signal is stronger - and an increase of 750 watts is not going to be very noticeable to listeners in most cases on the graveyard channels - only to be overwhelmed by an increase in the interference floor, the "power increase" is kinda pointless. Unless you're interested in a higher electric bill for essentially the same coverage.

It's reminiscent of the coastline AM stations with 50kw - feeding the fish. Over the center of population the field (necessary to protect inland stations) is something like a 1kw station.

As far as the X Band goes, propogation above 1610 behaves much differently from the way medium wave is at 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450 and 1490. It's much more like shortwave.

 

[Ai4i]

Maintaining a ten kw power level @ night would neither increase nor decrease their QRM free countours but it would give them a 10db advantage over natural noise as well as unintentional radiators including but not limited to power lines, flourescent lights, TV's, ets. It would also give them better HD coverage which requires near perfect reception.

 

[ddsparxx]

increase nor decrease their QRM free countours but it would

Countours? Never heard ofcountours. Perhaps you mean contours.

 

[Ai4i]

Countours?

Hourd tew type with this pee dee aye with the shon shyning doun upon moire

 

[Carmine5]

It's looking more and more like this whole discussion is moot. The FCC just released a rulemaking concerning analog LPTV stations going digital by 2012 (no more Franken FMs).

But of interest here is that for displacement of LPTV stations on channels 52-59, the FCC is requiring that these stations apply for any channel within the TV in-core service (2-51, except 37). The rulemaking also mentions changing power and antenna requirements for LPTV on the VHF band.

So, it appears that LPTV stations, particularly those being displaced as the FCC clears the 700 MHz band, will be allowed to apply for channels 5 and 6. And if that is the case, it seems highly unlikely that the Commission will turn these channels over to FM. Sorry. c5

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0917/FCC-10-172A1.pdf

 

[Savage]

Hmm. I wonder how well HD gets along at night with the shortwave-style propagation in the expanded band. As ai4i has noted, you've got to have essentially perfect reception conditions for the digital to decode....and skywave can do funky things up there in the "glove compartment."
It occurs to me that a 100% power increase for X-banders at night is one of those "there we go again" moves when it comes to packing the spectrum.

"Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it." Before you know it the FCC, eyeing more spectrum revenue, starts authorizing DAs in "special cases." And more power. And more stations with more power.....BINGO! New high-end graveyarders!

I mean, we're talking about a digital system that dies and pops back to analog with the flip of every nearby light switch. I think most people have found you've got to have an interference-free field over 25 to 30 mv/m for digital to decode reliably.

 

[Ai4i]

There ARE directional higher powered X-banders now, and why not? The two I know of are both coastal, they serve large markets and put no more than the equivalent of 1kw in any direction other than out to sea.

My limited experience is that stations on the high end of the band cover areas better in HD than ones on the low end even where the opposite is true for analogue.

 

[KB1OKL]

There ARE directional higher powered X-banders now, and why not? The two I know of are both coastal, they serve large markets and put no more than the equivalent of 1kw in any direction other than out to sea.

My limited experience is that stations on the high end of the band cover areas better in HD than ones on the low end even where the opposite is true for analogue.

Even if that is true it is relative as all AM HD comes in terrible. The problem is that the IBOC buzzsaw sidebands go for hundreds of miles at night ruining reception for adjacents while the digital signal itself goes just about nowhere. I have never seen such a useless thing as AM IBOC, it's kind of like putting a glass of water on your car roof and driving it to the next state and expecting it to still be there.

 

[Savage]

Well, I plead guilty to not expressing a point on the X-Band and HD: it's been proven pretty much beyond dispute that HD doesn't play well with (a) most directional systems, unless they're designed for HD from the ground-up, and/or (b) in cases where there is skywave interference, which prevents stable digital decode.

If the X-Band is being touted as a new interference-free playground for HD on AM, it's counterproductive to introduce higher power - which will ramp up skywave problems - and/or DAs which often lack common-point linearity and wide pattern bandwidth necessary for HD.

Cranking up power to provide a 3dB increase in local loudness which will be largely counteracted by increased skywave interference in the X-Band, and adding in the problems introduced by directional antenna characteristics - seems like making the same mistakes all over again which have plagued the older AM band.

 

[Ai4i]

This goes back to AM stereo days and high fi days before that. Traditional answers are to not use electrically short towers, fatten them up with skirt configurations, and never ever delay phase with a lot of LC circuits, use lengths of cable. @ least with these shorter wavelengths, the methods I listed become practical (affordable).

 

[Savage]

When it comes to fabricating delay lines to control phase, you can have MY share of that project, thanks!

"Damn! 573 feet of cable.....I've cut it three times now and it's STILL too short!!"

(I much prefer twirling a phasor crank or moving an inductor tap....)

Then there's the practical problem of explaining top-loading, and why you can't use it to shorten towers, to the local airport authority. And then all the towers over 200' have to be painted and lit. And, and, and....

 

[Ai4i]

I can often tell how delay is accomplished by listening to a station as I drive around it. Quality is as quality does and cheap is as cheap does.

These towers should rarely need to be officialy visible unless you are trying for some serious vertical gain.

 

[olmjax]

It's looking more and more like this whole discussion is moot. The FCC just released a rulemaking concerning analog LPTV stations going digital by 2012 (no more Franken FMs).

But of interest here is that for displacement of LPTV stations on channels 52-59, the FCC is requiring that these stations apply for any channel within the TV in-core service (2-51, except 37). The rulemaking also mentions changing power and antenna requirements for LPTV on the VHF band.

So, it appears that LPTV stations, particularly those being displaced as the FCC clears the 700 MHz band, will be allowed to apply for channels 5 and 6. And if that is the case, it seems highly unlikely that the Commission will turn these channels over to FM. Sorry. c5

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0917/FCC-10-172A1.pdf

I wonder what is the most effective way to petition the FCC in order to encourage them to continue the application freeze on TV channels 5 and 6? I believe that these channels are critical to the future of AM and FM radio. In addition, these channels are poorly suited for digital television (low power or full power) because of signal propagation issues.

 

[KTN Corp]

It's looking more and more like this whole discussion is moot. The FCC just released a rulemaking concerning analog LPTV stations going digital by 2012 (no more Franken FMs).

But of interest here is that for displacement of LPTV stations on channels 52-59, the FCC is requiring that these stations apply for any channel within the TV in-core service (2-51, except 37). The rulemaking also mentions changing power and antenna requirements for LPTV on the VHF band.

So, it appears that LPTV stations, particularly those being displaced as the FCC clears the 700 MHz band, will be allowed to apply for channels 5 and 6. And if that is the case, it seems highly unlikely that the Commission will turn these channels over to FM. Sorry. c5

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0917/FCC-10-172A1.pdf

I wonder what is the most effective way to petition the FCC in order to encourage them to continue the application freeze on TV channels 5 and 6? I believe that these channels are critical to the future of AM and FM radio. In addition, these channels are poorly suited for digital television (low power or full power) because of signal propagation issues.

The longwave band is unused in ITU Region 2 and shortwave is underutilized due to international content restrictions; two underutilized radio bands right there. In the FCC's eyes, there is no need to expand FM to 76-88 MHz.

Improvements in technology may make VHF viable to broadband use or digital TV. Right now, as it stands, the FCC can implement digital land mobile service (firefighter/police) in the old VHF-L TV band and shut down the analog/current digital ones in the current allocation. That will open up UHF channels in some cities.