In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 3:15?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

...
. The sheer capital

cost of the power increase (if approved) will be staggering
considering most of the current hardware and ancillary equipment
will have to be replaced."

"Where robust in reach, radio is an ailing medium that is
undergoing yet another adjustment to bring expenses inline with
revised revenue; so another big outlay in capital is not likely.

Of all the former 1 A clear channels, WSM is the lowest in billing
and the lowest in market rank. It exists only as a promotion for
the Gaylord enterprises in Nashville, as its ratings place it 14th
in the market, and in billings it is 22nd per a reputable source.
For most viable stations in the top 100 markets, the cost of
upgrading to new HD gear is small, and is a depreciable capital
expense item, not a cost. Dogs like WSM will find it hard to
manage, but that is because they are not successful radio stations.

Costs to upgrade run from $100,000 to $600,000 - not small.

For a non directional, single tower operation, the costs are at the
very low end.

Plus, the on-going licensing and HD channel royalty fees.

There is on annual fee for an AM.

Plus, the new 10db power increase, if approved, will be
staggering, as most equipment will need replacing.

That is for FM. And the costs are relatively minor... many existing
FM HD transmitters can increase power with module increases. "Most"
is an absurd word to use. Generally, only the PA part of the HD
transmitter will be replaced... the rest of most systems are robust
enough, as they handle the analog power which is much greater.

If you understand it explain to the audience peak power relative to RMS
and how they relate in terms of transmitter capacity needed for a
digital signal verses analog.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California