|
FM Broadcast band as we know it going away?
Dear Newsgroup,
Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the highest bidder. The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well? To me, it just doesn't seem right that we need to have change for the sake of "progress", unless the progress is real and necessary. Many times it seems that these huge changes in the basic infrastructure of our communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences. When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for this huge planned change in the FM band? I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed change and when it is to occur. |
Robert Hovland wrote:
Dear Newsgroup, Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? [sneck] The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well? Why should Mikey Powell give a rat's ass? Really... we're going to all have to replace our TV sets when analog television signals are phased out, aren't we? (At least that's what I've been led to understand) I personally have no desire to do so. I have digital cable. There is no additional attraction to having HDTV. The people south of here in the Marianas - the hills that separate Apple Valley, California from San Bernardino - might benefit. But only the people south or east of the Apple Valley town line, in unincorporated San Bernardino County, because they can't get cable (Charter's franchises are in Hesperia and Apple Valley and Victorville, but they don't have an agreement for the unincorporated areas where not many people live)... and especially in the Marianas, with the big hills right to the south, satellite might not be an option either. (Going east of AV towards Lucerne and Big Bear, satellite should be doable as the hills aren't over there.) I've *always* considered HDTV to be a solution looking for a problem... communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences. That's fine. Mikey P. can buy me a new television set. :-P When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for this huge planned change in the FM band? There is none. I doubt that anyone at the FCC cares (although I'm sure people will pipe up and tell me I'm wrong :) -- JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED |
In article ,
Robert Hovland wrote: Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band The FCC is not so doing, thus the consequences of such an action are moot. (Just ask your friends at KOTA-DT channel 2.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) |
"Robert Hovland" wrote in message ... Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? No, they don't have to switch to new channels. They have a choice of using the DTV on either of their channels. I'd imagine that many would choose their VHF channel if DTV turns out to work well there. As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between channels 6 and 7, As are hundreds of other services. I would be surprised if the FCC would leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. I see no connection what-so-ever between the TV switch to digital and any effect on the FM band or any other services between 88 and 174 MHz. It isn't as though FM stations were given a second frequency and have to choose between it and their current one. They want to auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the highest bidder. Right. The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well? I'd say that there is 0.00000000000001 % chance that the FM band would be moved. Where would it be moved to? TV was already allocated the UHF channels where much of DTV is located. Anyhow, some DTV stations are already on VHF, including channel 2. There is no other FM band for the stations to move to. I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed change and when it is to occur. Who said there was a proposed change for FM? I think you are making this up from whole cloth. TV is allocated a HUGE bandwidth. Modern receivers allow much closer spacing on UHF. The FCC is chosing to reclaim and sell some of this wasted bandwidth as part of the DTV situation. There is no parallel in FM. |
Robert Hovland wrote:
Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? Best bet right now is that that's not going to happen. "Core spectrum", into which all DTV will be placed, is channels 2-51. The FCC changed their minds twice about which spectrum to allocate. First, they said all DTV would be UHF. Then, they amended "core" to read channels 7-51. Finally, they seemed to conclude not all stations could be accomodated in 7-51, and added 2-6 to the list. My employer, whose analog signal is on channel 4, drew digital channel 10. Our biggest competitor has an analog signal on channel 5 and a digital on channel 56. They'll be forced to move their digital signal to channel 5 after the analog signs off. Channel 6 in Philadelphia drew digital channel 64, and will also be forced to move back to VHF after analog closes. There are many other examples. My guess is that the VHF stations didn't want to surrender the coverage (and power efficiency) advantages of the lower channels; and the land-mobile interests didn't want the large antennas and susceptibility to sporadic-E interference inherent in VHF. channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the highest bidder. FM indeed lies between channels 6 and 7 - just above channel 6. (you can receive channel 6 audio on most FM radios) The FCC has recently authorized "in band on channel" digital radio broadcasts in the current 88-108 band. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
The FCC changed their minds twice about which spectrum to allocate. First, they said all DTV would be UHF. Then, they amended "core" to read channels 7-51. Finally, they seemed to conclude not all stations could be accomodated in 7-51, and added 2-6 to the list. It sure is a shame they didn't go through with their original plan. I would have liked to have seen channels 2-6, or at least channels 5 and 6, given over to the FM broadcast band. Just think of how IBOC and LPFM might have worked out if the FM band had a little room to expand! |
Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? Nothing. As soon as the conversion to D-TV is complete, the TV stations which were temporarily relocated to other channels, some to VHF, but most to UHF, can return to their original channel, but on digital. |
I get a nice signal from WSMV-DT on my Channel Master UHF antenna here
in Bowling Green. Of course 56 booms in but 10's pic is much better. Of course maybe I'm just prejudiced. HA Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full copy. Must be multipath... Ben W4WSM My employer, whose analog signal is on channel 4, drew digital channel 10. Our biggest competitor has an analog signal on channel 5 and a digital on channel 56. They'll be forced to move their digital signal to channel 5 after the analog signs off. Channel 6 in Philadelphia drew digital channel 64, and will also be forced to move back to VHF after analog closes. There are many other examples. My |
Tony Calguire wrote:
It sure is a shame they didn't go through with their original plan. I would have liked to have seen channels 2-6, or at least channels 5 and 6, given over to the FM broadcast band. Just think of how IBOC and LPFM might have worked out if the FM band had a little room to expand! That's an interesting question: could two TV channels worth of spectrum (12MHz) provide enough room to give each analog FM BC station a digital counterpart without using IBOC? Since IBOC-AM seems to (more-or-less?!) work within 15KHz or so of bandwidth, it would seem a functional system with adequate quality to replace FM could be made to work with 120KHz available to each station. But the FCC had a hard enough time fitting the DTV assignments into the channels they have. Even dropping one or two might prove a serious problem... -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
In article ,
Doug Smith W9WI wrote: But the FCC had a hard enough time fitting the DTV assignments into the channels they have. Even dropping one or two might prove a serious problem... There would be enough bandwidth in a couple of 6-MHz TV channels to make Eureka 147 work for every station in most markets.... On a more politically-correct note, there are interference constraints between 8VSB transmissions on channel 6 and NCE-FM assignments which resulted in very few TV stations being allocated DTV 6. (I think I only found two when I looked. One of the original assignments was for WCTX New Haven (moving from 59); they found that the constraints on their power as a channel 6 were so confining that they arranged an allocation swap with very-low-power WEDY New Haven, which didn't need the coverage.) So it's conceivable that, after the transitional period is through, channel 6 could still be cleared for other purposes. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) |
Garrett Wollman wrote:
the coverage.) So it's conceivable that, after the transitional period is through, channel 6 could still be cleared for other purposes. There are nine stations whose analog assignment is channel 6 and whose digital is above 51. Those stations would have to be accomodated elsewhere to clear channel 6 after transition. (I suppose that might be possible by using one of the channels freed by other stations in the same market.) FWIW those nine stations a KVIE Sacramento (DTV-53) WABG Greenwood, Miss. (DTV-54) KOTV Tulsa (DTV-55) WIPR San Juan (DTV-55) KWQC Davenport, Ia. (DTV-56) WCML Alpena, Mich. (DTV-57) WKMG Orlando (DTV-58) WLNS Lansing (DTV-59) WPVI Philadelphia (DTV-64) Also FWIW, there are eight stations whose analog assignment is channel 5 and whose digitals are outside core. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Ben wrote:
I get a nice signal from WSMV-DT on my Channel Master UHF antenna here in Bowling Green. Of course 56 booms in but 10's pic is much better. Of course maybe I'm just prejudiced. HA I've been impressed with our DTV. It does a pretty good job. WKRN's does a darned good job too. I think something's broken with WTVF-DT, they don't do anywhere near as well as their analog. (nor anywhere near as well as WKRN-DT) Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full copy. Must be multipath... Probably, WBKO'd do a lot better if they'd splurge for a bigger tower... (do it cooperatively with channel 40, they both could use the help... of course, WSMV is better off with channel 40 having a wimpy signalgrin) I've seen WBKO-DT here, but only once and during a big tropo opening. The KETs (which aren't all that powerful) are far more frequently seen. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
|
No such proposal has been made. Digital FM has already been introduced on
the existing 88-108 Mhz band. "Robert Hovland" wrote in message ... Dear Newsgroup, Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the highest bidder. The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well? To me, it just doesn't seem right that we need to have change for the sake of "progress", unless the progress is real and necessary. Many times it seems that these huge changes in the basic infrastructure of our communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences. When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for this huge planned change in the FM band? I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed change and when it is to occur. |
John Byrns ) writes:
In article , (Michael Black) wrote: Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels 4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM band clustered with those other services that will not move. Isn't that a 4 mHz gap, not 6 mHz, between channels 4 and 5 that whatever takes up? You're right, I was looking at the chart wrong. Michael |
AHH FYI, There is only 4 MHz between TV 4 and 5....
72-76 MHz....not 6 MHz! Used for radio links (only is areas where TV 4 and 5 are not allocated/used) and model remote controls. 136-144 is government use....satellites (wx, etc) MARS, CAP, etc...even Russia's MIR used 143.625 MHz as a comm channel.... Chris WB5ITT wb5itt sub for Nospam above Houston Michael Black wrote: Whatever is between 136 and 144MHz Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels 4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM |
"Chris Boone" wrote in message ... AHH FYI, There is only 4 MHz between TV 4 and 5.... 72-76 MHz....not 6 MHz! Used for radio links (only is areas where TV 4 and 5 are not allocated/used) and model remote controls. Are there still 75 MHz fan markers of airport instrument approaches? [Showing my age.] |
Garrett Wollman had written:
| In article , | Robert Hovland wrote: | | Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM | band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up | their broadcast band | | The FCC is not so doing, thus the consequences of such an action are | moot. (Just ask your friends at KOTA-DT channel 2.) Evidently a few TVs are doing so already. KCSM San Mateo, CA (secondary PBS for the San Francisco Bay Area) announced in its March program guide that it will give up its analog allocation on channel 60 and will broadcast exclusively as DT on channel 43, multicasting at least two channels. The second channel will be a jazz channel complementing KCSM-FM. The primary reason, though, seems to be economic: "We made the decision that our resources needed to go toward serving more students by creating a whole new telecourse 'stream', rather than paying what amounts to double rent and electricity to continue our analog broadcast." KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue. -- "You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place." -- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004 |
WKRN really does have a nice signal. So much better than the analog
with all it's co-channel. I don't think BKO will ever go for a bigger stick. They never have been on the cutting edge and they seem to be happy with covering the surrounding counties. They have 4 antennas on the tower now with 13 and 24 both on it. I spoke with 40's GM a little while back and he talked of a new tower and an actual studio but it hasn't happened. I did turn the antenna around and see the DT signal but it didn't impress me so it was back to WSMV...I'm just glad the signal on 10 is so good up here. KET is running 4 channels. Too bad we can't see the PBS HD stuff. Wonder when 8 will turn on a transmitter? What's the deal with the Sinclair stations? They looked bad enough before DT but now they look like pixalated mush. Ben W4WSM I've been impressed with our DTV. It does a pretty good job. WKRN's does a darned good job too. I think something's broken with WTVF-DT, they don't do anywhere near as well as their analog. (nor anywhere near as well as WKRN-DT) Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full copy. Must be multipath... Probably, WBKO'd do a lot better if they'd splurge for a bigger tower... (do it cooperatively with channel 40, they both could use the help... of course, WSMV is better off with channel 40 having a wimpy signalgrin) I've seen WBKO-DT here, but only once and during a big tropo opening. The KETs (which aren't all that powerful) are far more frequently seen. |
"Mark Roberts" wrote in message ... SNIP The primary reason [for turning off over-the-air analog TV], though, seems to be economic: "We made the decision that our resources needed to go toward serving more students by creating a whole new telecourse 'stream', rather than paying what amounts to double rent and electricity to continue our analog broadcast." KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue. Amazing. Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving only a small percentage of the population? Rural areas surely must still rely on over-the-air TV. As an aside, in the news report that Cox Cable and ESPN had made peace it was reported that Cox will pay ESPN $2.61 per month for each of their cable subscribers! [Moderator's Note: Yes, rural areas do, to a certain extent, rely on over- the-air TV, but in many cases, people probably have DSS or cable, like my parents who live 40 miles east of Cleveland in Geauga County, Ohio, and get most of their programming from Dish Network. Here in Apple Valley, CA, and throughout the (mostly rural) High Desert, there are probably more people who have to rely on over-the-air signals, but the Los Angeles stations, which are 90 miles southwest of here, all have translators sitting on a tower down in Hesperia. The tower isn't well maintained, though, and I don't know whether Victorville's lone local TV station, KHIZ-TV 64, has its transmitter in that area or not... my wife says they don't, actually, and that their transmitter is up in Victorville near their studio. But in Apple Valley/Victorville/Hesperia, unless you live outside city limits, you can get cable from Charter, and up in Barstow, you can get cable from... mmm... I think it's Time Warner. And in spite of the mountainous terrain, most homes in this area are properly situated to use DSS also. Interesting note: Until the recent mandates allowing DSS providers to carry local stations, my parents had to use an antenna to get Cleveland's TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS] |
On 20 Feb 2004 19:01:43 GMT, "R J Carpenter"
wrote: Amazing. Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving only a small percentage of the population? Rural areas surely must still rely on over-the-air TV. Some years ago, my employer's TV station (since sold) was hit by a devastating arson fire that wiped out its transmitter. The station was off the air for weeks, but kept feeding cable headends. Ratings were unchanged. Hardly any viewers noticed the on-air signal was gone. I'm sure the cable penetration is even higher now, although it's been several years since I checked. Mark Howell |
R J Carpenter had written:
| | "Mark Roberts" wrote: | | KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be | affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue. | | Amazing. | | Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving | only a small percentage of the population? In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is quite likely. Yet NBC did suffer a hit when it got into a snit with KRON (from losing the bidding to buy the station) and flipped the affiliation to KNTV in San Jose. An estimated 25% of the geographic area lost NBC service over-the-air, but KNTV quickly arranged with Comcast's predecessor to ensure cable carriage on area systems. In any event, KNTV has filed to move to Mt. San Bruno (the site that KCSM-TV is leaving). But the hit in ratings may have come more from KNTV's image (or lack of image) in the market and having to compete with the San Francisco incumbent stations in news. KNTV doesn't seem to be really committing the resources or the brains to do it consistently right. It's passable but feels like about Kansas City in quality. Anyhow, due to the terrain of the Bay Area, as well as its geographic expanse, there is no site that will serve all areas well. There will be significant dead spots no matter where the transmitter is located -- obviously, that's true for FM as well. The best combination for FM stations seems to be a Sutro (SF) or Beacon site with on-channel repeaters in the I-680 corridor in the East Bay. TVs haven't tried that combination, possibly due to the relatively heavy reliance on cable. KDTV does have a translator in Santa Rosa (far North Bay), and KRON did have one there until KQED-DT came on and wiped out channel 30. -- "You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place." -- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004 |
R J Carpenter wrote:
Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving only a small percentage of the population? This varies dramatically from market to market -- national "penetration" numbers for cable and satellite are averages, with some areas much lower, and others much higher. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, off-air viewing of the local stations is still common, since we have one of the lowest cable penetration rates in the country, and not all satellite subscribers opt to pay the satellite company to provide what they can receive off-air for free. TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS] Why pay $5/month to get what they're currently getting for free? It seems a very rational decision to me...especially since the antenna apparently provides signals from mulitple markets, something that Dish can't legally offer to them. |
Ben wrote:
WKRN really does have a nice signal. So much better than the analog with all it's co-channel. IMHO that's only half the problem. Even without the CCI here, the computer noise/leaky insulators are pretty bad - and when they aren't present, the signal can be just plain snowy. But when the sporadic-E kicks in, well, you'd better have a DTV if you want to watch ABC... There have been days when I've had a snow-free signal from XEFB with some weak WKRN CCI in the background! (then again, if you'd seen a picture of the XEFB transmitter site (I have), you'd know why they get out so well!) I don't think BKO will ever go for a bigger stick. They never have been on the cutting edge and they seem to be happy with covering the surrounding counties. They have 4 antennas on the tower now with 13 and 24 both on it. I wonder if there might be some concern over WKRN (and as a result, ABC) getting bent out of shape if WBKO puts too much RF down into Tennessee? Wonder when 8 will turn on a transmitter? 8 just took out a STA for roughly 45kW ERP. Strange, as I thought I read their full-power transmitter was already ready to go & they were just waiting on the STL and encoder. What's the deal with the Sinclair stations? They looked bad enough before DT but now they look like pixalated mush. I don't watch often enough to know... They've got five transmitters at the same site now (all three digitals and the analogs for 30 and 58) so I suppose STL bandwidth is at a premium... -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
John Byrns wrote:
In article , (Michael Black) wrote: Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels 4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM band clustered with those other services that will not move. Isn't that a 4 mHz gap, not 6 mHz, between channels 4 and 5 that whatever takes up? Ch 2 - 54-60 mHz Ch 3 - 60-66 mHz Ch 4 - 66-72 mHz 72-76 - used by pagers, model airplanes, etc. Ch 5 - 76-82 mHz Ch 6 - 82-88 mHz FM Band - 88 - 108 mHz etc. |
Tom Desmond wrote:
TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS] Why pay $5/month to get what they're currently getting for free? It seems a very rational decision to me...especially since the antenna apparently provides signals from mulitple markets, something that Dish can't legally offer to them. Because none of the stations come in clear. I guess they don't mind having snow on the TV as well as on the front lawn... -- JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED |
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:06:59 +0000, Robert Hovland wrote:
Dear Newsgroup, Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the highest bidder. Who would be interested in this spectrum if its not used for Broadcast? Not real practical for a mobile communications use since most systems now use hand held radios and antennas at this band are not user friendly. Maybe Rural high-speed Internet services? The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well? To me, it just doesn't seem right that we need to have change for the sake of "progress", unless the progress is real and necessary. Many times it seems that these huge changes in the basic infrastructure of our communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences. When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for this huge planned change in the FM band? I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed change and when it is to occur. |
I wonder if there might be some concern over WKRN (and as a result, ABC) getting bent out of shape if WBKO puts too much RF down into Tennessee? I'm surprised 4 allowed 40 to go NBC. Most of 13's coverage area is in KY of course and they used to claim they covered more counties of KY than any other VHF. I kinda think WAVE may have taken that honor now. I don't watch often enough to know... They've got five transmitters at the same site now (all three digitals and the analogs for 30 and 58) so I suppose STL bandwidth is at a premium... 58 has really come up in analog power and 58's digital is strong now where it was pretty much flea power before. 30's analog went down here when they went to the new tower. Oh well, I'll keep watching for your posts. Ben |
Steven J Sobol wrote:
TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS] Because none of the stations come in clear. I guess they don't mind having snow on the TV as well as on the front lawn... Cable isn't cheap - last I looked, the basic "lifeline" service (just the local OTA stations and a couple of shopping channels) is $300/year here. I know people who spend over $1,200/year for cable. Personally, I'm willing to live with a fair amount of snow to save $300! One year's "lifeline" cable charges here would buy a digital tuner. It can be connected to their existing analog TV and antenna and will deliver a fantastic picture & sound. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Ben wrote:
I'm surprised 4 allowed 40 to go NBC. So am I. I suspect some money changed hands. (given that they were - maybe still are - simulcasting some of our newscasts) It would make a certain amount of sense to operate 40 as a satellite of 4. 58 has really come up in analog power and 58's digital is strong now where it was pretty much flea power before. 30's analog went down here when they went to the new tower. Interesting. 58's analog hasn't improved much since the move. Their digital is the best of the bunch. To the best of my knowledge they never operated their digital from the old tower south of town - in fact, I don't recall their digital ever being authorized to operate from that tower. Interesting also that 30's analog dropped. The towers are within a few dozen feet of each other, and the antenna height actually *increased* (by an entire 2 meters...) on the new tower. They were already running the max 5000kw, and still are, at least according to the FCC DB. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Wonder what side of the tower 30's antenna is? I know it was all alone
at the top of the old tower since they came on the air. A whole 2 meters! HA Just looking it looks shorter than the old one... 58 was almost unwatchable up here when they were at the old site. When they turned on digital it was very weak. I spoke to someone that worked on the 58 site one day on 444.775. He told me at that time he couldn't see it across town. Boy I bet this is a fun thread for everyone but us... Ben BTW, is David VanHooser still working there? Sure I didn't spell his name right... Interesting also that 30's analog dropped. The towers are within a few dozen feet of each other, and the antenna height actually *increased* (by an entire 2 meters...) on the new tower. They were already running the max 5000kw, and still are, at least according to the FCC DB. |
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
Cable isn't cheap - last I looked, the basic "lifeline" service (just the local OTA stations and a couple of shopping channels) is $300/year here. I know people who spend over $1,200/year for cable. Personally, I'm willing to live with a fair amount of snow to save $300! Cable isn't cheap, but 1200/year is 100 per month. I don't pay that much to Charter, and I not only have digital cable, I also have the $40/month Internet service (it's the middle-of-the-line residential package, 768x128 Kbps, similar in bandwidth to many residential DSL packages). -- JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED |
Ben wrote:
Wonder what side of the tower 30's antenna is? I know it was all alone at the top of the old tower since they came on the air. A whole 2 meters! HA Just looking it looks shorter than the old one... Hard to tell. I suppose it's possible one of the other poles in the candleabra is in the way... 58 was almost unwatchable up here when they were at the old site. When they turned on digital it was very weak. I spoke to someone that worked on the 58 site one day on 444.775. He told me at that time he couldn't see it across town. Hmmm. Maybe they started at even lower power than they're using now? I did note WNPT's DTV on the air this afternoon. It was off again by primetime though. Obviously still testing. BTW, is David VanHooser still working there? Sure I didn't spell his name right... No, and I'm not sure! -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
On 24 Feb 2004 03:32:02 GMT, Steven J Sobol ("Steven") writes:
Steven Doug Smith W9WI wrote: Cable isn't cheap - last I looked, the basic "lifeline" service (just the local OTA stations and a couple of shopping channels) is $300/year here. I know people who spend over $1,200/year for cable. Personally, I'm willing to live with a fair amount of snow to save $300! Steven Cable isn't cheap, but 1200/year is 100 per month. I don't Steven pay that much to Charter, and I not only have digital cable, Steven I also have the $40/month Internet service (it's the Steven middle-of-the-line residential package, 768x128 Kbps, similar Steven in bandwidth to many residential DSL packages). Here in the Boston area, the top tier package for Digital Cable costs $94.20, HDTV is another $7.25, and if you want the Internet that's another $42.95. Not counting the rental of the set-top box, and all the taxes and extra fees. |
FM Broadcast band as we know it going away?
Good day to all of you, guys.
I'm a newbie in communications and I do have some questions I hope you can help me answer. Maybe if you have time, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance! :) 1. Give 5 other uses of FM broadcasting and discuss how FM is being used. 2. Why do we say that FM stereo broadcasting is using a Frequency Division Multiplexing? Explain. 3. Why is 19 kHz used as the carrier frequency of the FM stereo broadcasting, why not other frequencies? |
FM Broadcast band as we know it going away?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com