Expanding into the Japanese FM band.

[ai4i]

A lot of chatter recently about transitioning AM radio stations to a digital only service from 88MHz down to 82MHz or 76MHz. Traditional clears and low end regionals would have an option to stay put. a few new channels would also be reserved for LP stations and community stations. Second option should read, "Migrate into channel six only". Oppinions, thoughts?

[Danny]

As a DXer, I'm always against anything that hinders DX (in this case, low-band TV).

As an American, I realize that the end of TV DXing is eventually coming. Stockholders of new technology providers want the bandwidth for profit, and consumers want new wireless gadgets...

[spunker88]

I think extending FM from 76mhz up would be a good idea. It would give FM space to expand and be a good opportunity for Dxers. They should keep it analog!

FM radio sounds great if you have a good signal and a good system for base and amplification. I honestly would have a hard time telling the difference between a CD and a good FM radio. Analog works for FM, this wasnt the case for TV. Anybody could tell the difference between even a good analog signal and digital. Digital tv looks better than analog, but i dont think it would work for radio.

Many people use radios in cars, and instead of just getting some static in the background as you drive in and out of good and bad signal, you would go from good audio to nothing. Im rural so many of my FM presets are around 50 or so miles away. When driving there are areas they will fade due to hills or buildings, but a slight amount of static is better than no signal due to cliff effect. Digital would ruin FM for many. Digital audio will sound worse than analog since they will compress it to save space. If i had the choice between 300kpbs mp3 or FM, i would choose FM.

TV on the other hand, is used at a stand still. The antenna can be adjusted for the best signal in that area and kept there, unlike car radio.

[Danny]

I think extending FM from 76mhz up would be a good idea. It would give FM space to expand and be a good opportunity for Dxers.

Spunker, I hesitated to comment on this.

Like so many things in life, one person's good fortune is sometimes another person's misfortune. Yes, FM DXers would benefit, but TV DXers would be losers. TV DXing will eventually be gone, nevertheless: the channels will be put to other uses, while TV in Latin America will become digital and move out of the low-band. A few DXers would like to DX the TV signals from Latin America a while longer before the channels are filled with other services. In addition, TV DXers want to log the handful of DTVs on the low-band before the DTVs move to higher channels in an effort to avoid reception problems.

IMHO, the days of OTA TV and radio are numbered.

I often wonder who looks at OTA low-power TV stations. I know people who watch shopping channels and religious programs, but they all have cable or satellite.

[ai4i]

No one is even touching upon the issue of making a simple and cheap car radio antenna that would function across the full 32 MHz bandwidth.

[spunker88]

Spunker, I hesitated to comment on this.

Like so many things in life, one person's good fortune is sometimes another person's misfortune. Yes, FM DXers would benefit, but TV DXers would be losers. TV DXing will eventually be gone, nevertheless: the channels will be put to other uses, while TV in Latin America will become digital and move out of the low-band. A few DXers would like to DX the TV signals from Latin America a while longer before the channels are filled with other services. In addition, TV DXers want to log the handful of DTVs on the low-band before the DTVs move to higher channels in an effort to avoid reception problems.

IMHO, the days of OTA TV and radio are numbered.

I often wonder who looks at OTA low-power TV stations. I know people who watch shopping channels and religious programs, but they all have cable or satellite.

Oh yea, im sorry. I was thinking it was either going to be FM analog or some digital crap. I forgot about its current use for TV. I dont do much tv dxing so I forgot.

[w9wi]

A lot of chatter recently about transitioning AM radio stations to a digital only service from 88MHz down to 82MHz or 76MHz. Traditional clears and low end regionals would have an option to stay put. a few new channels would also be reserved for LP stations and community stations. Second option should read, "Migrate into channel six only". Oppinions, thoughts?

I think any plans to take over channels 5 and 6 only are doomed to failure.

Channel 6 is home to nine full-power DTV stations. (admittedly one has filed to move to UHF 41) There are also 39 digital LPTVs currently authorized on channel 6.

Channel 5 has 14 full-power DTVs; a 15th has filed to move *from* UHF 44 *to* VHF 5. And there are 34 digital LPTVs authorized on channel 5.

Vast parts of the country would have access to half or less of the new band. Including most of the Northeast. (channel 6 would be off-limits due to Albany, Philadelphia, and New Haven.) And most of the states of Georgia and Alabama. The other half would be missing in much of Michigan (due to Kalamazoo and Toledo), and pretty much the entire state of Tennessee (due to Memphis, Nashville, and Bristol))

We don't yet know what further new digital LPTVs may be authorized. An urban D-LPTV filing window is expected to open early in the new year.

I would suggest any FM expansion plan should involve the entire 54-88MHz band. (of course except the 72-76MHz airnav band)

[ai4i]

I think any plans to take over channels 5 and 6 only are doomed to failure.
I would suggest any FM expansion plan should involve the entire 54-88MHz band. (of course except the 72-76MHz airnav band)
As usual, w9wi's contribution is enlightened and well thought out.
Perhaps the solution would be to have shared services at 54-74 MHz (I do not know what is directly below the marker beacons @ 75 MHz), 76-108 MHz, 174-216 MHz, and 470-798 MHz or whatever the new top of the UHF TV band is. Receivers would scan the whole range and line up the available stations on virtual channel numbers.

[cd637299]

I say, whatever happens, IF it happens, won't be "gotten" by the public for years on end. Look at the "success" of the AM X-band (I don't mean for DXing, but rather ratings....) After 13 years, that part of the band is still ignored, AND, some ppl are still using radios that only go to 1600.

Then you have those, when analog TV was ready to shut down, insisted that they "didn't know" (despite incessant PSAs on TV about the changeover)---one of the reasons why the Obama admin. decided to wait 3 more months. (Um, never mind that the original shut-off was supposed to be in 2006!)

Add to that, the iPods, music downloads etc., and "radio" in general will continue to be a non-factor....maybe not in the near future, but in the distant one. (Heck...maybe Radio Disney will be able to snap up FM frequencies in the coming years!)

cd

[K3PHL]

Of course hindsight is 20/20. A well thought out approach to the FM HD radio nightmare would have been to put the HD channels from 76-87 MHz in the markets that didn't have TV 6 and leave 88-108 as strictly analog.

From an FM DX perspective, running analog or digital FM in the lower Japanese FM band here in the US would be awesome in that we could take advantage of those openings that make it to TV 5 and 6 but don't quite reach 88.

[ai4i]

Actually, leaving anything analogue is dooming it to an eventual death.
"The sine wave is dead, long live the square wave"

[spunker88]

Actually, leaving anything analogue is dooming it to an eventual death.
"The sine wave is dead, long live the square wave"

I think that would spell doomsday for FM radio in rural America. I have radio presets in my car that are 50+ miles away. Most of the time they come in and sound great since its a pretty bare FM band here. But when Im driving there will be areas where you hit a little bit of static which usually goes for the most part blends in the background. With digital everything would just go silent. That would get so annoying.

Also, I cant see the general public even those in cities near transmitters, being for Digital FM. With DTV, especially HDTV, people notice the difference vs analog pretty quickly. With FM it would be hard to notice, and if stations begin to encode at a lower quality to fit in more subchannels, digital will actually sound worse. On a good FM radio, I would have a hard time telling the difference between a CD and the FM broadcast, which probably originates from a CD, but thats not the point.

I dont think analog FM is dead yet, just like AM analog is still around after all these years. A good idea for digital FM would be to put it on the TV spectrum or something and leave our trusty analog FM alone. It sounds just as good as digital, if not better, and just like analog TV, it doesnt suffer from the cliff effect so its broadcast range is further.

[N5XZS]

IMHO, they should be pure digital signals no WBFM mode allowed and with extra TX power at least 100 KW ERP.

And besides the lower freqs, this will help the groundwave ranges much better than 88 to 108 MHz.

Also, I would like to see the FCC allocated the 1 MHz wide for hobby broadcasting band, on 76.000 to 77.000 MHz capped at 25 watts PEP licences by rule, just like the CB band back in 1977.:)

[ai4i]

IMHO, they should be pure digital signals no WBFM mode allowed and with extra TX power at least 100 KW ERP.

Then, why not just suggest doing what the civilized countries are doing: Eureka 147?

[cckadlec]

Honestly, I don't see the point in digital anything. For digital TV, how is that any better than analog? The whole cliff effect is the most annoying thing in the world, getting program information really isn't that beneficial - that's why we have TV Guide (although even that kinda turned into an entertainment magazine instead)... and for FM radio? We'd go from the 85 or so stations we get right now, down to 10 or fewer. For digital TV, we went from about 25-30 analog channels down to 3 or 4, and the antenna is 50 feet off the ground. I can't imagine FM radio in digital at ground level in a car or indoors.

Forget digital. Nothing but trouble and it's all about money. Don't fix what's not broken. I hear people in the radio industry talking about the death of radio and all... but I think going digital actually *would* kill it. I barely ever watch TV since it went digital, because the signal dropping out every 30 seconds and having to turn the antenna every time you change from one channel to another... why bother?

[spunker88]

I thought digital tv was pretty nice. It allows for HD picture and sub-channels. I went from 3 local analog channels to 7 total channels in digital now. The only issue is that OTA lost its position as a back-up for people when cable or satellite tv services do down. With analog it was easy to jury rig an indoor antenna and get a snowy picture or use a battery powered tv when the power goes out. With digital its hard to do this unless you live close to transmitters. Luckily I live around 15-20 miles the DTV transmitters in my area so a simple indoor antenna does the trick. I have a DTV on VHF-H and i can literally touch my thumb to the end of a coax cable and get like 70% signal. But for fringe signals beyond the "cliff" DTV is a pain.

For radio I just dont see the advantage tv has. You can "sell" the picture quality of DTV, especially when shown on a large flat screen, but a high end FM tuner with a good sound system and good FM signal and analog would probably sound better. The soft static that occurs in the background of analog FM and AM signals is actually relaxing to the human ear. And high end tuners do a good job at eliminating undesirable background static anyways.

Digital will never survive on AM due to thunderstorms which can knock out local signals easily. There are videos on youtube where a 10 mile daytime signal gets knocked out of HD by a distant thunderstorm, because of those little crackles you get on AM. With no analog you would hear nothing while the HD signal relocks.

And on FM, the cliff effect would be terrible with no analog signal around. Imagine you go under a bridge or something in your car and the FM signal gets weak for several seconds. With analog you'd hear a little static, no big deal, but with digital after the buffer runs out the signal would disappear for several seconds until it can relock. And for people like myself who live in a rural market with few local stations, who find themselves looking to distant markets for more channels, digital would ruin this. As a kid I can always remember waiting around in the summer for a hot sunny day so I could get the Syracuse stations in on my radio and record some stuff to tape. I would later learn there was actually tropo that happened to be active on these days.

[cckadlec]

I forgot about the subchannels. There is a nice advantage to that. As long as I can see the picture, I'm ok, so good picture quality hasn't been a big selling point for me, and HD radio sure is no better than anything else. I think it's hard to sell better sound quality when it's all so close in comparison anyway.

Most of our local stations here are in the 20-65 mile range, most in the 50+ range, and the rest that are received normally are from 100-140 miles away - the really strong signals that always are in with RDS, like 90.1 WMBI in Chicago, 95.1 WIIL, 99.1 WMYX, and 100.7 WKKV from Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha, would likely disappear with digital. We can't get a damn thing from Milwaukee on DTV now - barely even a blip of a signal on the bar, not even during strong tropo! 4 and 6 in Milwaukee (about 105 miles to our west) used to be our locals, as strong as the stations 40 miles away, and we usually watched them every night for programming and local news. Now, nothing.

[spunker88]

Part of that probably has to do with power levels and frequencies. The FCC made the power limits for digital lower than analog, and many channels decided to move to UHF. One of my locals was, broadcasting with 750kw on UHF digital, and then switched back to there analog channel 7 after the transition and only had to broadcast at 25kw to get the same coverage according to the FCC maps.

[cckadlec]

Very true. We don't have a UHF antenna. But even then, 3 of my locals are in VHF, but still we had to aim right at them, and they're not in the same place (one of three is right by our town, so no matter where we aim, it's in).

*sigh* I'm an analog boy all the way.