[BC] Expanded AM Band and License Return

[Robert Meuser]

Make it digital only.

R



Dana Puopolo wrote:

>So let me get this straight...
>
>The FCC made a plan. These broadcasters ACCEPTED the plan. Now that THEY have
>to DO what they AGREED TO DO, they now say: "We don't want your rules!"
>
>Let me give all of you a better plan to 'increase diversity'.
>
>TAKE AWAY all the expanded band stations from the AM's who don't want to
>follow the rules now, and give them to NEW APPLICANTS!
>
>Make the rules simple: NO PRESENT OWNERS NEED APPLY!
>
>Even better: Use a lottery and give local people and minorities that apply TWO
>chits in the lottery!
>
>-D
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:47:26 AM EDT
>From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold at hallikainen.com>
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Subject: [BC] Expanded AM Band and License Return
>
>I found the article at
>http://www.radioworld.com/reference-room/special-report/2006.06.21-03_rw_AM_ex_6.shtml
>interesting. I recall the expanded band was introduced to result in a long
>term reduction in interference on the AM band. Stations whose removal from
>the existing band would result in the greatest interference reduction were
>given a preference for licenses in the expanded band. During the
>transition, they were allowed to broadcast on both the old and new
>frequencies. I thought they were required to simulcast, but from what I
>read in this article, that does not seem to be the case. Anyway, these
>stations now do not want to give up the old channels. Not giving up the
>channels appears to result in an increase in local program diversity, but
>does not result in the original goal of interference reduction.
>
>Harold
>
>
>  
>