[BC] RE:IBOC

[Davis, Jack L. KTXL]

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:44:15 -0700
From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] IBOC
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <366JgNiSP9136S15.1121330655 at cmsweb15.cms.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The better way would have been digital on another band....They could have
shared a few UHF channels for example, as not all are used in every city. 

Instead, we ahve this abortion of digital radio that (at least to my ears)
sounds awful, and trashes it's neighbors.

The irony is that in their original comments to the FCC about digital radio,
Sconnix Broadcasting wanted AM stations to get less bits then FM because FM
stations cost more! Preposterous, right? Well, that's EXACTLY what happened!

Now, everybody says: "Well, this is the system we have so let's live with
it!"
I have news for you...If TV (had) thought that way, we'd still be using the
CBS color system and have spinning color wheels in our TV sets!

-D

The FCC missed a real opportunity here when the TV DTV rules were formed.
The low VHF channels 2-6 (54-88 MHz) would have been a logical extension of
the FM band for digital applications.  With proper coding these frequencies
would perform very well in a mobile environment and the tuners would be a
continuous band from 54 to 108 MHz with the exception of the minor 2-Way
slice at 76 MHz.  Most TV stations have decided not to go into the low VHF
spectrum due to issues with the 8VSB modulation and noise limiting plus co
and adjacent channel interference.  If the DTV core was specified for
channels 7 to 57 instead of 2 to 52 it would allow the TV stations to
utilize all the available channels and still leave room for 700 MHz public
safety expansion.  

Jack Davis
K6YC