[BC] RE:IBOC

[DANA PUOPOLO]

It's an impossible POLITICAL dream!

Technically a yes, practically (politically) it will never work.

-D



------ Original Message ------
Received: 
From: Mark Humphrey <mark3xy at yahoo.com>
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] RE:IBOC


Jack,

I share your opinion.  Is this an impossible dream?

Is it really too late to reassign a couple of low-band
channels from TV to radio?   The TV broadcasters
appear to be giving them up voluntarily.  (Here in
Philadelphia, both Chs 3 and 6 have elected to keep
their DTV facilities on UHF following the analog
sunset.)  

This could provide the "new spectrum" needed for AM
stations to migrate to digital without the drawbacks
of trying to make it work in hybrid mode.  Incumbent
AM licensees would be assigned a new digital channel
(with same characteristics as full digital IBOC FM) in
the former TV channels 5 and 6, they would simulcast
the analog programming through the end of the
transition period, and we would end up with a single
digital radio band between 76-108. 

The following (laws-of-physics) problems would be
solved:

1)  Domestic IBOC skywave issues and Canadian
objections to new nighttime interference.

2)  All daytimers could operate at night. 

3)  Atmospheric (lightning) interference, powerline
noise, etc. is much less of a problem at 76 MHz than
at 540 kHz.

4)  Building penetration would greatly improve at the
shorter wavelengths.

5)  AM stations would finally offer the same audio
quality as their FM competitors and gain the
opportunity to broadcast a secondary service.      

6)  On-channel digital boosters could be employed to
fill in dead spots caused by terrain.  

7)  No more limitations on non-commercial FM due to
Channel 6 protection rules.

8)  Multi-tower arrays would no longer be needed --
all that real estate could be sold for other uses.  DA
maintenance would be a thing of the past.  (Some
stations might keep a single tower to support their
VHF bay)

Note that the first six are clear "consumer benefits"
that could actually convince listeners to run out and
buy a new radio. 

Let's kick this idea around some more before we decide
it's too much of a threat to the status quo.

Mark

--- "Davis, Jack L. (KTXL)" <Jldavis at tribune.com>
wrote:

> 
> 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.  


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/