"umarc" wrote in message
...

The problem is not WOR. The problem is that digital modulation
schemes tend to require more bandwidth than analog schemes. As a
result, neither the AM nor the FM form of "HD Radio" is truly
in-band, on-channel; in-band, adjacent-channel is a more accurate
description.

The "IBOC" surely falls within the emission mask that has existed for a long
time. Problem is that before IBOC, what fell toward the edges of the mask
was the ocassional zing or sput. Now IBOC fills it chock full on a
full-time basis. We have the mask used to condon a type of emission for
which it was NOT designed.

The January 2 issue of _Radio World_ contains an article describing
a Chicago FM station's experiences with "HD Radio", and notes that
several stations in adjacent markets, having complained to the
FCC about interference from this station's "HD Radio" signal, have
been told they have to put up with it. The official line seems to
be that stations are only licensed to provide coverage out to their
protected contours, and anything they cover beyond that is subject
to whatever interference may arise in the future, whether from
"HD Radio", LPFM, local computer networks, or whatever.

The flood of FM translator applications will be judged on the same basis,
further limiting the real coverage of FM stations.

I believe this position is poor policy because a lot of smaller
stations are dependent on coverage beyond the protected contour
for their economic survival. These are, for the most part,
stations that were "dropped in" over the past twenty years as
"rimshots" to various markets, licensed to suburbs or rural
communities that can't realistically support them. Deprived of
access to adjacent markets, many of them are likely to become
unsustainable, I think.

I don't have sympathy for the rim-shots which never had any intention of
serving the town they used to justify "first local service" in order to get
their license.

If the FCC wants to pretend stations serve no listeners beyond
their protected contours, then it should not be authorizing
stations that can't prosper within those contours.

The FCC hasn't required applicants to even file fake income projections for
a number of decades. Their policy is to allow as many stations as the
technical rules permit, and they've watered down the tech rules over the
years in order to allow more stations. Every Congressperson has had a
friend who wanted a radio station.

Moreover, it
ought to recognize that just as broadcast spectrum is a limited
resource, so are advertising dollars in any community, and it is
not necessarily the case that more stations on the air mean better
service.

Ever hear of "Let the marketplace decide". Those phone calls from Capitol
Hill would keep the FCC busy full time if they tried to use the kind of
judgement you recommend.

The bottom line is I believe IBOC is a mistake, and many stations
and their listeners will suffer because of it.

I certainly agree with you. And the flood of more FM translators will
further degrade the service of existing stations.

Sigh!