"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...

It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station
(broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area
than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple
signals on the same frequency mix together.

The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low
power signals. They aren't useful in this area. A standard power
transmitter would encroach on the coverage area of one or more of these
stations. I'm sure there are cases in which a low power station could be
allowed. The street gang FM pirate is an example of this. I don't live
near where they were broadcasting, but I think I heard them. They were
broadcasting rap, and I had no interest in listening. The nearest licensed
station on that frequency is in LaSalle Illinois, or some such place. I
doubt they have any listeners east of Aurora. There were no interference
complaints.



The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC.
A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if
WRLL had been operating downstate.

I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after
they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger
number of daytimers could be worked out, however.



As for the seemingly-open FM frequency, that depends on the quality of
one's receiver. I can ensure you my car radio (1998 Ford Escort) finds
NO open FM channels anywhere along the Edens/Kennedy/Ryan/Skyway
corridor. (and I'd be amazed if it found one open anywhere else in the
Chicago city limits) The frequencies either side of WUSN (99.3, 99.7)
*sound* open but that's because WUSN is running IBOC!

On the other hand, one could take that to extremes... my home receiver
provides useful reception of several Memphis stations, 170 miles away.
Should we prohibit any Nashville station from operating on a Memphis
frequency?

That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a
technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number
of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio
markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the
station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not
a technical one. The government gives alot of weight to the opinions of the
NAB on interference. There's closer station spacing, more stations, and
more 24 hour operations and IBOC, all with NAB backing. The NAB didn't like
the low power FM proposal, presumably on interference grounds, and we don't
have it.



The new LPTVs have (probably, I don't know the specific channels) become
possible as a result of the FCC relaxing certain "taboo channel"
regulations. They acknowledge a major improvement in the selectivity of
UHF TV tuners since 1952. Many FM receivers haven't improved
significantly in selectivity since the 1950s.

Image rejection is an issue. Chicago's Ch. 23 gets an image from another
station.



Right. And viewers/listeners don't really make the distinction between
cable and satellite and broadcasting anymore. If 90% of a person's TV
channels are uneffected by the fairness doctrine, does the fairness
doctrine
have any effect on the viewer?

Y'know, this is a dilemna in light of the Commission's new decency push.

How does OTA broadcasting compete with TBS, HBO, XM, or Sirius? When
the former industry is restricted by decency rules, while the latter
isn't?

How does enforcing decency rules against OTA stations accomplish
anything when most homes have content-unregulated premium channels?
When a growing number of cars have content-unregulated XM receivers? So
little Johnny doesn't learn what a breast looks like from Janet Jackson
on CBS. He'll figure it out the next night when he tunes past Showtime
during a program that shows a whole lot more than Jackson did...

I'm not a parent, so I'll admit my opinion is nearly worthless, but, if I
were a parent, I'd seriously consider just playing tapes and DVDs through
the TV.



Cable TV channels use radio transmission (via satellite) to link their
programming to your local cable system. XM and Sirius use radio
transmission (again via satellite, and now also terrestrially) to
deliver their programs to your radio.

IMHO the FCC has grounds to regulate both services on content if they
chose to do so. IMHO they need to either do so, or lift content
regulations on OTA.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
(who does, incidentially, believe the FD should return)