[BC] RE:IBOC

[Paul Smith W4KNX]

Will never happen.  Would mean that current inferiour stations would gain
parity with the big players.  We have what we got now because of this.

Paul Smith
Sarasota, FL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Humphrey" <mark3xy at yahoo.com>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:59 PM
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/
>