• 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

WWL "National" Coverage

> >
> > THIS EVENT is a PRIME example of why the 1As are still
> > needed. Not some much to sell spots, but to serve the
> > community. I know David you dont like to think that the
> > signal can carry beyond their DMA, but it does and rather
> > nicely thank you. And this is serving the community, even
>
> > though a lot of the community is displaced.
> >
>
> This is a case where satellite makes far more sense.
>


Again I TOTALLY disagree. How many people have satellite? Very few. It is much easier in times of extreme stress and emergencies to just pull out the little transisitor radio and pick up the station.
 
>
> Is it hard for David to admit he was wrong?
>


It may not be "right" today due to the low number of satellite receivers. But it only takes on per home, not a replacement for every radio in the US, to provide satellite service. Or, what if there is a free satellite channel on both XM and Sirius for regional or national emergencies?

Very few markets are blessed with a full coverage AM, or even one that could provide good coverage if it went non/directional in an emergency. And in the type of emergency we are talking about now, where the infrastructure is very endangered or destroyed, there is a limit on being able to keep a local transmitter site on the air, provided with fuel and connected to a microphone somewhere.

Temporarily, the Comando Solo planes from the military, could broadcast on AM in disaster areas without having to worry abouut ground conditions. This is bizarre but workable technology, ready to go at a moment's notice. The military also has AM stations in a box, which can be flown to a safe location and activated in hours.

To preserve clear channels for something that happens infrequently is not a practical solution, especially since we are throwing 80 year-old technology at a problem. This statement does not even take into account the highly deteriorated coverage of the large signal stations due to on channel interference, especially in the southern and southwestern states.

Were all stations in a location silenced by storm, lack of power, etc., there are not always nearby stations that can reliably get a signal into a market and that would be able to relay disaster information. In some areas, like the FL panhandle, there are no broad coverage stations and the conductivity is so horrible that even 50 kw only goes a short distance. We need a different solution, and this would seem to come under the Homeland Security banner for the future.
 
> >
> > This is a case where satellite makes far more sense.
>
> Because so many of those evacuees have access to satellite
> radios...also, who would run the terrestrial repeaters?
> Should each station have to maintain a nationwide network of
> terrestrial repeaters? If everyone is forced to share
> repeaters, who pays to maintain them?

I suggest in another post "free" channels on satellite. The terrestrial repeaters are only needed to fill shadows, and in an emergency, having the transimitter up in the sky has very big advantages.

This is a future possibility, as are airborn AM stations and such. Land based stations are very fragile in emergencies, and we have the technology to guarantee disaster information in other ways. But we are not doing it.
>
> David, what could be so wrong with keeping the class A
> channels clear? It has many benefits in a catastrophic even
> like this. Even if there are no benefits, it isn't hurting
> anything, is it? In that long thread over a year ago, you
> kept contradicting yourself.

Most cities do not have such stations, and the wide coverage is really only useful at night. We need a system capable of doing 24 hour communication.
>
> First you argued that the clear channels should not be
> protected because under non-emergency situations, only a few
> people listen to skywave, with the benefit presumably being
> that not protecting them could free up channels for new
> stations to use to serve local areas. Okay, I highly
> disagree, but I see your point.

The benefit of not protecting the night signals on the clears was in the context of the iBOC debate. No more stations are added, although perhaps some of the daytimers could be given fulltime rights.
>
> But then, when I argued that a new broadcast band should be
> opened up because broadcast frequencies are in such high
> demand, you insisted that the market cannot handle new
> stations because having new stations would reduce the value
> of existing ones, hurting retired people on fixed incomes
> who have invested their money in radio. How can you argue
> both for and against adding new stations to the market at
> the same time? Either there is a shortage, or there is not.
> Either the market can handle more stations than it has now,
> or it cannot.

Adding stations in markets that have no good AM signals should be a priority, giving preference to the removal of existing stations to better channels. For example, DC has no AM that covers the entire market day and night.
>
> The only benefit of adding stations in an existing broadcast
> band is that they can be picked up on existing receivers.
> However, you have also argued in favor of AM IBOC because it
> would supposedly enable niche music formats to exist on AM,
> but IB(A)C requires people to buy new receivers anyway.
> Well if you're going to have to buy a new receiver anyway,
> why not just add capabilities to pick up a new broadcast
> band to new receivers, like FM in the 1960s, and not destroy
> mediumwave in the process?

Already half of all stations do not make money. If you want deteriorated service, add more. HD is an added benefit, not added stations... for the moment.
>
> I just don't buy the argument that there is no spectrum for
> this. The entire AM band would fit in the space of just 8
> FM channels. The entire FM band would fit in the space of
> just over 2 TV channels. XM has as much spectrum as about 2
> TV stations, and using digital compression they've fit all
> their channels into only 1/3 of that space (they have 2
> nonoverlapping satellite frequencies to avoid interference
> where signals from 2 satellites overlap, plus dedicated
> frequencies for terrestrial repeaters). We have a TV
> conversion going on that will free up more than that amount
> of spectrum in the VHF band, and our military hogging more
> spectrum than all broadcast services combined.

But the plans for the VHF channels are already in motion. There is no available spectrum, from a political and economic point of view. The beauty, if there is one, of HD, is that it uses existing channels.

> There is
> plenty of spectrum that can be reallocated for this. In the
> meantime, let the displaced citizens of New Orleans benefit
> from WWL's skywave service to get updates about what's going
> on around their flooded homes.
>

And be thankful they could stay on the air (although the were off the air during the most intense part of the storm... for just the "fragility" reasons I have named) because in many cases you would have all stations off the air.
 
> > >
> > > This is a case where satellite makes far more sense.
> >
> > Because so many of those evacuees have access to satellite
>
> > radios...also, who would run the terrestrial repeaters?
> > Should each station have to maintain a nationwide network
> of
> > terrestrial repeaters? If everyone is forced to share
> > repeaters, who pays to maintain them?
>
> I suggest in another post "free" channels on satellite. The
> terrestrial repeaters are only needed to fill shadows, and
> in an emergency, having the transimitter up in the sky has
> very big advantages.
>
> This is a future possibility, as are airborn AM stations and
> such. Land based stations are very fragile in emergencies,
> and we have the technology to guarantee disaster information
> in other ways. But we are not doing it.
> >
> > David, what could be so wrong with keeping the class A
> > channels clear? It has many benefits in a catastrophic
> even
> > like this. Even if there are no benefits, it isn't
> hurting
> > anything, is it? In that long thread over a year ago, you
>
> > kept contradicting yourself.
>
> Most cities do not have such stations, and the wide coverage
> is really only useful at night. We need a system capable of
> doing 24 hour communication.
> >
> > First you argued that the clear channels should not be
> > protected because under non-emergency situations, only a
> few
> > people listen to skywave, with the benefit presumably
> being
> > that not protecting them could free up channels for new
> > stations to use to serve local areas. Okay, I highly
> > disagree, but I see your point.
>
> The benefit of not protecting the night signals on the
> clears was in the context of the iBOC debate. No more
> stations are added, although perhaps some of the daytimers
> could be given fulltime rights.
> >
> > But then, when I argued that a new broadcast band should
> be
> > opened up because broadcast frequencies are in such high
> > demand, you insisted that the market cannot handle new
> > stations because having new stations would reduce the
> value
> > of existing ones, hurting retired people on fixed incomes
> > who have invested their money in radio. How can you argue
>
> > both for and against adding new stations to the market at
> > the same time? Either there is a shortage, or there is
> not.
> > Either the market can handle more stations than it has
> now,
> > or it cannot.
>
> Adding stations in markets that have no good AM signals
> should be a priority, giving preference to the removal of
> existing stations to better channels. For example, DC has no
> AM that covers the entire market day and night.
> >
> > The only benefit of adding stations in an existing
> broadcast
> > band is that they can be picked up on existing receivers.
>
> > However, you have also argued in favor of AM IBOC because
> it
> > would supposedly enable niche music formats to exist on
> AM,
> > but IB(A)C requires people to buy new receivers anyway.
> > Well if you're going to have to buy a new receiver anyway,
>
> > why not just add capabilities to pick up a new broadcast
> > band to new receivers, like FM in the 1960s, and not
> destroy
> > mediumwave in the process?
>
> Already half of all stations do not make money. If you want
> deteriorated service, add more. HD is an added benefit, not
> added stations... for the moment.
> >
> > I just don't buy the argument that there is no spectrum
> for
> > this. The entire AM band would fit in the space of just 8
>
> > FM channels. The entire FM band would fit in the space of
>
> > just over 2 TV channels. XM has as much spectrum as about
> 2
> > TV stations, and using digital compression they've fit all
>
> > their channels into only 1/3 of that space (they have 2
> > nonoverlapping satellite frequencies to avoid interference
>
> > where signals from 2 satellites overlap, plus dedicated
> > frequencies for terrestrial repeaters). We have a TV
> > conversion going on that will free up more than that
> amount
> > of spectrum in the VHF band, and our military hogging more
>
> > spectrum than all broadcast services combined.
>
> But the plans for the VHF channels are already in motion.
> There is no available spectrum, from a political and
> economic point of view. The beauty, if there is one, of HD,
> is that it uses existing channels.
>
> > There is
> > plenty of spectrum that can be reallocated for this. In
> the
> > meantime, let the displaced citizens of New Orleans
> benefit
> > from WWL's skywave service to get updates about what's
> going
> > on around their flooded homes.
> >
>
> And be thankful they could stay on the air (although the
> were off the air during the most intense part of the
> storm... for just the "fragility" reasons I have named)
> because in many cases you would have all stations off the
> air.
>

Can you imagine the fragility of trying to keep a number of terrestrial repeaters on the air during a hurricane? Have you tried to get a satelitte signal during a big storm? It doesnt work. Sorry it still does not add up to me.
 
> > >
> > > THIS EVENT is a PRIME example of why the 1As are still
> > > needed. Not some much to sell spots, but to serve the
> > > community. I know David you dont like to think that the
>
> > > signal can carry beyond their DMA, but it does and
> rather
> > > nicely thank you. And this is serving the community,
> even
> >
> > > though a lot of the community is displaced.
> > >
> >
> > This is a case where satellite makes far more sense.
> >
>
>
> Again I TOTALLY disagree. How many people have satellite?
> Very few. It is much easier in times of extreme stress and
> emergencies to just pull out the little transisitor radio
> and pick up the station.
>

You're right. Not everyone has Satellie, David. How does it feel to be wrong? Come on boy, admit it!
 
> > > >
> > > > This is a case where satellite makes far more sense.
> > >
> > > Because so many of those evacuees have access to
> satellite
> >
> > > radios...also, who would run the terrestrial repeaters?
>
> > > Should each station have to maintain a nationwide
> network
> > of
> > > terrestrial repeaters? If everyone is forced to share
> > > repeaters, who pays to maintain them?
> >
> > I suggest in another post "free" channels on satellite.
> The
> > terrestrial repeaters are only needed to fill shadows, and
>
> > in an emergency, having the transimitter up in the sky has
>
> > very big advantages.
> >
> > This is a future possibility, as are airborn AM stations
> and
> > such. Land based stations are very fragile in emergencies,
>
> > and we have the technology to guarantee disaster
> information
> > in other ways. But we are not doing it.
> > >
> > > David, what could be so wrong with keeping the class A
> > > channels clear? It has many benefits in a catastrophic
> > even
> > > like this. Even if there are no benefits, it isn't
> > hurting
> > > anything, is it? In that long thread over a year ago,
> you
> >
> > > kept contradicting yourself.
> >
> > Most cities do not have such stations, and the wide
> coverage
> > is really only useful at night. We need a system capable
> of
> > doing 24 hour communication.
> > >
> > > First you argued that the clear channels should not be
> > > protected because under non-emergency situations, only a
>
> > few
> > > people listen to skywave, with the benefit presumably
> > being
> > > that not protecting them could free up channels for new
> > > stations to use to serve local areas. Okay, I highly
> > > disagree, but I see your point.
> >
> > The benefit of not protecting the night signals on the
> > clears was in the context of the iBOC debate. No more
> > stations are added, although perhaps some of the daytimers
>
> > could be given fulltime rights.
> > >
> > > But then, when I argued that a new broadcast band should
>
> > be
> > > opened up because broadcast frequencies are in such high
>
> > > demand, you insisted that the market cannot handle new
> > > stations because having new stations would reduce the
> > value
> > > of existing ones, hurting retired people on fixed
> incomes
> > > who have invested their money in radio. How can you
> argue
> >
> > > both for and against adding new stations to the market
> at
> > > the same time? Either there is a shortage, or there is
> > not.
> > > Either the market can handle more stations than it has
> > now,
> > > or it cannot.
> >
> > Adding stations in markets that have no good AM signals
> > should be a priority, giving preference to the removal of
> > existing stations to better channels. For example, DC has
> no
> > AM that covers the entire market day and night.
> > >
> > > The only benefit of adding stations in an existing
> > broadcast
> > > band is that they can be picked up on existing
> receivers.
> >
> > > However, you have also argued in favor of AM IBOC
> because
> > it
> > > would supposedly enable niche music formats to exist on
> > AM,
> > > but IB(A)C requires people to buy new receivers anyway.
>
> > > Well if you're going to have to buy a new receiver
> anyway,
> >
> > > why not just add capabilities to pick up a new broadcast
>
> > > band to new receivers, like FM in the 1960s, and not
> > destroy
> > > mediumwave in the process?
> >
> > Already half of all stations do not make money. If you
> want
> > deteriorated service, add more. HD is an added benefit,
> not
> > added stations... for the moment.
> > >
> > > I just don't buy the argument that there is no spectrum
> > for
> > > this. The entire AM band would fit in the space of just
> 8
> >
> > > FM channels. The entire FM band would fit in the space
> of
> >
> > > just over 2 TV channels. XM has as much spectrum as
> about
> > 2
> > > TV stations, and using digital compression they've fit
> all
> >
> > > their channels into only 1/3 of that space (they have 2
> > > nonoverlapping satellite frequencies to avoid
> interference
> >
> > > where signals from 2 satellites overlap, plus dedicated
> > > frequencies for terrestrial repeaters). We have a TV
> > > conversion going on that will free up more than that
> > amount
> > > of spectrum in the VHF band, and our military hogging
> more
> >
> > > spectrum than all broadcast services combined.
> >
> > But the plans for the VHF channels are already in motion.
> > There is no available spectrum, from a political and
> > economic point of view. The beauty, if there is one, of
> HD,
> > is that it uses existing channels.
> >
> > > There is
> > > plenty of spectrum that can be reallocated for this. In
>
> > the
> > > meantime, let the displaced citizens of New Orleans
> > benefit
> > > from WWL's skywave service to get updates about what's
> > going
> > > on around their flooded homes.
> > >
> >
> > And be thankful they could stay on the air (although the
> > were off the air during the most intense part of the
> > storm... for just the "fragility" reasons I have named)
> > because in many cases you would have all stations off the
> > air.
> >
>
> Can you imagine the fragility of trying to keep a number of
> terrestrial repeaters on the air during a hurricane? Have
> you tried to get a satelitte signal during a big storm? It
> doesnt work. Sorry it still does not add up to me.
>

I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
<P ID="signature">______________

AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
 
> > WBAO, 820 AM in Fort Worth, also claims 38 states I
> believe.
>
> You probably mean WBAP.


Yep, sorry, typo. O is next to the P on the keyboard.

To make things worse, I used to traffic reports for them :).


> KOA (850 AM, Denver) also has a
> huge coverage area. I've heard it nightly from San
> Francisco to Chicago. Something like WLW might cover more
> states, though. It's not KOA's fault that all the western
> states are so much larger than the eastern ones.


KMOX booms into Dallas also as well as KOA.
 
> > WBAO, 820 AM in Fort Worth, also claims 38 states I
> believe.
>
> You probably mean WBAP.


Yep, sorry, typo. O is next to the P on the keyboard.

To make things worse, I used to do traffic reports for them :).


> KOA (850 AM, Denver) also has a
> huge coverage area. I've heard it nightly from San
> Francisco to Chicago. Something like WLW might cover more
> states, though. It's not KOA's fault that all the western
> states are so much larger than the eastern ones.


KMOX booms into Dallas also as well as KOA.
 
XM during outages

> I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.


And if the electricity is off how long will it work? And if the electricity is going to be off for a V E R Y substantial time. From my experience NOT VERY LONG! The XM portables are battery pigs as will the IBOC portables, whatever YEAR that is going to be.<P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>
 
Re: XM during outages

> > I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
>
>
> And if the electricity is off how long will it work? And if
> the electricity is going to be off for a V E R Y
> substantial time. From my experience NOT VERY LONG! The XM
> portables are battery pigs as will the IBOC portables,
> whatever YEAR that is going to be.
>
Car adaptors. Plug it in the cigeratte lighter.<P ID="signature">______________

AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
 
Wind up radios

I have 4 wind up radios. An early AM FM SW Freeplay, big and heavy. A later model one that's wind up and Solar. OK on AM and FM. A Green AM FM SW Radio Shack model. Decent. A Grundig (Tecsun) AM FM SW that's excellent for the inexpensive price. Runs on AA's or wind up to charge the internal battery. The newer model has LED lamps instead of incandescents.

THERE ARE NO WIND UP SATELLITE RECEIVERS.

Powell <P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>
 
Re: XM during outages

> > > I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
> >
> >
> > And if the electricity is off how long will it work? And
> if
> > the electricity is going to be off for a V E R Y
> > substantial time. From my experience NOT VERY LONG! The XM
>
> > portables are battery pigs as will the IBOC portables,
> > whatever YEAR that is going to be.
> >
> Car adaptors. Plug it in the cigeratte lighter.


OK there is no gas to run the car...and right now in NO your car may be under 12 to 20 feet of water.


Powell
<P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>
 
Re: XM during outages

> > > > I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
> > >
> > >
> > > And if the electricity is off how long will it work? And
>
> > if
> > > the electricity is going to be off for a V E R Y
>
> > > substantial time. From my experience NOT VERY LONG! The
> XM
> >
> > > portables are battery pigs as will the IBOC portables,
> > > whatever YEAR that is going to be.
> > >
> > Car adaptors. Plug it in the cigeratte lighter.
>
>
> OK there is no gas to run the car...and right now in NO your
> car may be under 12 to 20 feet of water.
>
>
> Powell
>

For the people who evacuated, XM is good. And the cigarette lighter runs off the battery. Channel 247 will work whether you're a subscriber or not and it gives of usefull emergency information.

For the people who are stuck, WWL and the rest of the stations are the way to go.

If it were my choice (Evacuated or not) I would choose WWL.
<P ID="signature">______________

AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
 
Re: XM during outages

> > I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
>
>
> And if the electricity is off how long will it work? And if
> the electricity is going to be off for a V E R Y
> substantial time. From my experience NOT VERY LONG! The XM
> portables are battery pigs as will the IBOC portables,
> whatever YEAR that is going to be.

The fundamental problem is that digital technology requires decrypting and uncompressing the signal, which cannot be done with passive components (inductors/capacitors creating a resonance) like those used in an analog receiver. You need a special digital processor, which is usually CMOS and hogs power. It's just like with data compression: you can save space storing and transferring files, at the expense of CPU time and energy. You can save spectrum by transmitting digitally, at the expense of energy expended at the transmitter and receiver to do the encryption/decryption and compression/extraction.

I have a background in EE, and unless there's a revolutionary breakthrough, this will not be possible to do with passive components anytime soon. No one can figure out a way to discharge internal nodes by recovering some of the charge, so it all gets sent to ground and generates heat. Normally the extra CPU time isn't a big deal, unless you have to run on batteries for an extended period of time...I have radios that can run for 50 hours or more on a set of batteries. Notice that no digital devices like ipods or laptops can even come close.
 
> I tried my XM during a storm. Worked fine.
>

I just got it about a month ago and it has generally worked in awful weather but not always. Wouldn't call it 100% reliable, but far better than satellite TV, anyway.
 
>
> You're right. Not everyone has Satellie, David. How does it
> feel to be wrong? Come on boy, admit it!
>

Because the penetration is only 8 million today does not mean that this should not be considered as a possible delivery method inthe future. Defintely, with increasing ineterference, lack of good A signals in many cities, and the vulnerability of land based transmitter sites (ever notice how AM broadcasters try to put the tower in the lowest land possible?) make AM and even FM a poor choice when ther eis a widespread disaster.

Daytime, a distant AM can not cover from afar, and many areas do not have the necessary AMs to cover via skywave an affected area from a distance. For example, a disaster in Tallahassee can not be covered by an AM in Panama city, Albany or Valdosta... daytime, they don't come in, and nights they are all on very congested channels.

Some type of satellite technology is the best way to achieve coverage of highly affected areas. AM is not reliable, and totally ineffective during the daylight hours if local stations are all inorperative.

Lacking that, Comando Solo flights or drop-in portable AMs are the route. Depending on local stations in a disaster area is horribly and dangerously risky. Just consider that the OSHA / NIMBY / Cost equation has many stations without generators, back up sites or backup studio facilites. Redundancy in radio means being able to stay on if a transmitter or console fails, not if the entire area falls victim to a natural disaster... or worse.

A couple of questions:

How many hours worth of fuel do you think the average station has for its generator (if it has one)? Hint: generators are purchased, usually, to keep the station on the air for shor periods, such as when a car drives into a utility pole and interrupts service.

what do you think the duty cycle of most gennie sets is? (Hint... it is not continuous duty)

How many AM stations have a backup site?

How many AM stations have flood-protected the transmitter by putting the building and the tower bases above the 100 year flood level? (again, remember that AMs seek out low, marshy wetlands for sites... prime flood areas).

How many stations have backup studios at a different location or at the transmitter?

How many stations in office buildings could run for more than a few hours during an emergency?

How many stations have vehicles that can get to the transmitter in the event of flooding, earthquake damage, etc? (In other words, how many engineers have hummers or helicopters?)

Commercial radio stations are not generally prepared for emergencies. WWL went off in the middle of the hurricane, yet it was as well prepared as any station I have ever heard of! The nation needs a better emergency system.
 
> >
> > You're right. Not everyone has Satellie, David. How does
> it
> > feel to be wrong? Come on boy, admit it!
> >
>
> Because the penetration is only 8 million today does not
> mean that this should not be considered as a possible
> delivery method inthe future. Defintely, with increasing
> ineterference, lack of good A signals in many cities, and
> the vulnerability of land based transmitter sites (ever
> notice how AM broadcasters try to put the tower in the
> lowest land possible?) make AM and even FM a poor choice
> when ther eis a widespread disaster.
>
> Daytime, a distant AM can not cover from afar, and many
> areas do not have the necessary AMs to cover via skywave an
> affected area from a distance. For example, a disaster in
> Tallahassee can not be covered by an AM in Panama city,
> Albany or Valdosta... daytime, they don't come in, and
> nights they are all on very congested channels.
>
> Some type of satellite technology is the best way to achieve
> coverage of highly affected areas. AM is not reliable, and
> totally ineffective during the daylight hours if local
> stations are all inorperative.
>
> Lacking that, Comando Solo flights or drop-in portable AMs
> are the route. Depending on local stations in a disaster
> area is horribly and dangerously risky. Just consider that
> the OSHA / NIMBY / Cost equation has many stations without
> generators, back up sites or backup studio facilites.
> Redundancy in radio means being able to stay on if a
> transmitter or console fails, not if the entire area falls
> victim to a natural disaster... or worse.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> How many hours worth of fuel do you think the average
> station has for its generator (if it has one)? Hint:
> generators are purchased, usually, to keep the station on
> the air for shor periods, such as when a car drives into a
> utility pole and interrupts service.
>
> what do you think the duty cycle of most gennie sets is?
> (Hint... it is not continuous duty)
>
> How many AM stations have a backup site?
>
> How many AM stations have flood-protected the transmitter by
> putting the building and the tower bases above the 100 year
> flood level? (again, remember that AMs seek out low, marshy
> wetlands for sites... prime flood areas).
>
> How many stations have backup studios at a different
> location or at the transmitter?
>
> How many stations in office buildings could run for more
> than a few hours during an emergency?
>
> How many stations have vehicles that can get to the
> transmitter in the event of flooding, earthquake damage,
> etc? (In other words, how many engineers have hummers or
> helicopters?)
>
> Commercial radio stations are not generally prepared for
> emergencies. WWL went off in the middle of the hurricane,
> yet it was as well prepared as any station I have ever heard
> of! The nation needs a better emergency system.
>


The answer to your questions is, if the station is a major player in the market ALL of the answer SHOULD be a YES! I know our little market (Milwaukee) we CAN answer yes to these questions. If we can do it in Milwaukee, most other markets can, and SHOULD.

One of our 50kW AMs has enough diesel to run for a week+ (I probably could extend that at a lower power level). We have another location that runs off of the Natural Gas lines, and if the natural gas lines are OK we have unlimited power. We have at least two backup studios in different locations, with the capability to run our remote trailers as two MORE studios for a total of four. I have also gone over the instructions with the news staff as to how they can get back on the air from the remote locations.

If stations do not have the ability to do a remote studio then you need to talk to your competitor about how you can use their space or faclities. We have done that as well here, so we have even more capabilities, and they will have the use of ours.

As a matter of fact we DO have a Hummer, but we also have four other 4 wheel drive vehicals that will do just as fine of a job. My personal vehical will get me anywhere I need to.

Our studios has a backup generator and we have plans if that location is not functional to move to other locations. We also have a 40kW generator on wheels if we need it.

WWL did go off for a while, but come one.... it was quite a storm, and they (from what I have heard) came up rather quickly. You can plan until you are blue in the face and still something may fall through the cracks. My hat is off to the folks at WWL for staying on the air as much as they did, and also for teh broadcatsers in the area for pulling together for the good of the community! There is a lot to be learned here folks! If you think it cant happen to you, you are hiding your had in the sand.

Now is the time to learn folks! Now is the time to ACT. There is NO reason why stations should not have a plan in place. And once you have a plan, TEST IT! If we can do it here, there is NO reason why other cant!
 
> To preserve clear channels for something that happens
> infrequently is not a practical solution, especially since
> we are throwing 80 year-old technology at a problem. This
> statement does not even take into account the highly
> deteriorated coverage of the large signal stations due to on
> channel interference, especially in the southern and
> southwestern states.

It may not be practical, but it's what we've got now. And so far, it's worked pretty well. I think that given the FCC allowance to broadcast on daytime power/patterns during emergencies, we're pretty well covered. And despite the deteriorated coverage areas due to co- and adjacent-channel interference, there are stations out of the area that can reach them, and while they may not be perfectly clear in terms of signal quality, they're still quite capable of relaying important information to the areas that need it.

> Were all stations in a location silenced by storm, lack of
> power, etc., there are not always nearby stations that can
> reliably get a signal into a market and that would be able
> to relay disaster information. In some areas, like the FL
> panhandle, there are no broad coverage stations and the
> conductivity is so horrible that even 50 kw only goes a
> short distance. We need a different solution, and this would
> seem to come under the Homeland Security banner for the
> future.

However, in the panhandle, you're never very far from the conductivity that the Gulf provides, and that can shoot signals from all over the place... Tampa, Houston/Galveston, New Orleans... even while the ground conductivity is terribly poor. I agree that a better solution is a good idea, but this one has been proven time and again. I certainly disagree that satellite radio is the answer, though. You can't accurately and reliably provide disaster information from New York or D.C. to New Orleans. This is the type of case where localism is indeed the way to go without question.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Pretty much all of them say "38 states and half of Canada". Its never 37 states.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
>
> However, in the panhandle, you're never very far from the
> conductivity that the Gulf provides, and that can shoot
> signals from all over the place... Tampa, Houston/Galveston,
> New Orleans... even while the ground conductivity is
> terribly poor.

Even a few miles inland, conductivity reverts to about the worst that exists in the US... I ran 1270 in Tallahassee, and with the best signal in the market, we could not get much more than 15 to 20 miles daytime and barely covered the city at night. Much of the US has similar conditions, were, even under emergency conditions, local stations do not cover much and distant ones are neither close by enough to care or strong enough to get in day and night.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom