"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)

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this
space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these
stations.

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.

That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility
allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose
skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all
attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is
looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move
to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service
by the full-time stations on those frequencies.

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.

Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits
of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current
protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio,
give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase
in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also
means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade
5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by
raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be
obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the
interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as
well as the existing, stations.

All the details about how this is done can be found at
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/

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.

Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC
can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step
would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription
services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. Better that
if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the
only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those
restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits
(although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is
exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

does the fairness
doctrine
have any effect on the viewer?

The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. Reagan Administration.

First Time Users May Be asked To Do A 1 Time Setup.
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one,
in this
space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer
in to these
stations.

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.

That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A
facility
allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations
whose
skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers,
and all
attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is,
the FCC is
looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in
place) to move
to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more
regional service
by the full-time stations on those frequencies.

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.

Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to
the limits
of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV,
the current
protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to
noise ratio,
give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB
increase
in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the
transmitter) also
means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the
rural-grade
5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased
interference (by
raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable
signal would be
obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength.
So, in the
interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both
the new, as
well as the existing, stations.

All the details about how this is done can be found at
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/

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.

Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where
the FCC
can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the
next step
would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds.
Subscription
services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities.
Better that
if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that
it's the
only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those
restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such
limits
(although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything
is
exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know
you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote in message
...

does the fairness doctrine
have any effect on the viewer?

The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. Reagan Administration.

If you'd been paying attention, ALL of us in this discussion are well aware of this.
The argument (or, in this case, the question) was whether the FD, if in place, would
have any affect on a viewer. I say yes. Frank, here, seems to think not. While I
don't doubt that the FD did suppress a licensee's willingness to editorialise, I also
think that the FD forced licensees to provide more balanced coverage, and can cite
studies which conclude that the tenor of American political discourse shifted right
after the FD was eliminated, as you note, by the Reagan FCC, abetted by right-wing
so-called "think tanks" dedicated to proclaiming the conservative world view. The
sorry part of all of this is that that claim that conservative ideals would be good
for the country is a lie....how else can it be concluded that the Great Depression
was made Great by the conservative values of the day, whereas the nation recovered to
be the truly Great America through the instigation of socialist
practices....everything from social security, to bank deposit insurance, to welfare
and unemployment insurance.

As the conservative voice decries these programs, under the Fairness Doctrine it can
be expected that the dissenting view MUST be discussed. As it stands now, any
contrary view can be squelched by an O'Reillian "Shut Up!"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one,
in this
space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer
in to these
stations.

There's no evidence the Chicago street gang FM pirate ever took one listener
away from any licensed station. Their signal was lost in the noiise a few
miles from their transmitter. The nearest licensed station was over 60
miles away. The FM pirate was playing rap, much of it was offensive, and
there were no 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.

That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A
facility
allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations
whose
skywaves come in from all over.

Of course not. But it does indicate that the FCC's interference standard is
weak. If the FCC had a strong stand on interference, WRLL wouldn't exist as
it is in either Chicago or Johnson City. Given the interference and power
situation, it's practically a daytimer for most of it's listeners anyway.


And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all
attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is,
the FCC is
looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in
place) to move
to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more
regional service
by the full-time stations on those frequencies.

The irony is the Xband is best suited to daytimers. Or true clear channel
24 hour operations. As it is, it's a mess at night.


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.

Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to
the limits
of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV,
the current
protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to
noise ratio,
give-or-take).

What is the noise in the signal to noise factor? Do they take into account
the cochannel interference, or they just assuming natural plus manmade
backround noise? On nearly all AM nighttime frequencies, the cochannel
interference is much stronger than the backround noise.

And there are very few FM frequencies which go down to the backround noise
anymore.


But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase
in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the
transmitter) also
means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the
rural-grade
5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased
interference (by
raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable
signal would be
obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength.
So, in the
interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both
the new, as
well as the existing, stations.

I think we're saying the same thing here. I said:

"Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear
reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna."

Which sounds much like:

"Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say,
2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm
contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength."

If the FCC really wanted to take a stronger stand on interference, it could
bring back it's older interference standards with wider frequency spacing
between stations in the same market, fewer AM nighttimers and fewer
stations overall.

If the FCC wanted to take a near absolutist stand on interference, they
could get rid of about 75% of the stations. The remaining stations would
have a much wider coverage area.

The FCC has neither a wide open stand on interference nor a absolutist stand
on interference. The current standard is a comprimise with elements of both
technology and politics. I belive politics is the bigger factor. The NAB
didn't like the old interference standards, so we have new standards. The
NAB and NPR didn't like the low power FM proposal, so they screamed
"interference!". I think there's plenty of room for low power 10 to 1000
watt FMers which would serve a community.
...

All the details about how this is done can be found at
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/

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.

Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where
the FCC
can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the
next step
would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds.
Subscription
services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities.

What about OTA subscription services? The used to be pay TV stations in
areas which weren't wired up with cable.

Suppose IBOC AM flops, and Clear Channel converts their digital sidebands
into a subscription service. Should those stations be allowed the same
speech rights as satellite stations?

Better that
if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that
it's the
only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those
restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such
limits
(although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything
is
exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know
you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one,
in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer
in to these stations.

There's no evidence the Chicago street gang FM pirate ever took one listener
away from any licensed station. Their signal was lost in the noiise a few
miles from their transmitter. The nearest licensed station was over 60
miles away. The FM pirate was playing rap, much of it was offensive, and
there were no complaints

Doesn't matter. The method by which allocations are made is sound, proven and, while
imperfect in that it leaves white areas, is beholding to physical laws which require
this strategy. And (getting back to the original thread) getting a few more stations
on the air, under any condition, STILL does not permit the unbounded access to public
discourse that printed matter or the spoken word affords. And this is the reason for
the Fairness Doctrine....to assure that all reasonable voices are heard, which itself
provides a lot of latitude for freedom of speech and control of a licensee's own
business activities. (And with that, it's time to change the thread's subject).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-