On Mar 12, 10:17�am, "RHF" wrote:
David Eduardo,

OK -if- we look at the last FCC Data for AM and FM
Broadcast Radio Station Totals :http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt061231.html#START
Total AM Radio Stations = 4,754
Total FM Radio Stations = 6,266
Total FM {Educational} PBS/NPR Radio Stations = 2,817
GRAND TOTAL FOR RADIO = 13,837

Why Not - Move about a third of the smaller lower powered
AM/MW Radio Stations that serve small {local} Rural
Radio Markets to "HD" FM Broadcasting and clear out
the AM/MW Band of a lot of the over-crowding and noise.
* *This would create "Space-and-Distance" within the
AM/MW Radio Band for those wider "HD" AM Radio
Signals and their Adjacent Channel Digial Noise.

Why Not - Expand the FM Band to cover 76 MHz to 88 MHz
to create and additional 60 Channels for most of the AM/MW
Radio Stations to transition to -and- Clear-Out the AM/MW
Band except for about 250 National and Regional Clear
Channel AM "HD" Radio Stations.

Again -IMHO- You have proven the case for FM "HD" Radio
as a Long Term Business Strategy -and- You have shown
that AM "HD" Radio is a short term business strategy that
at best is only buying time for Corporations to Divest them
selves of what will become an every dimishing market while
their FM Radio Business is Growing and Expanding.

"HD" {Digital-IBOC} AM/MW Radio only makes long term
business sense when there are fewer AM/MW Radio Stations
that are in-fact Clear Channels and Powerful enough to
cover Large Regions of the Country Day-and-Night. *This
can only happen with a reduction in the number of AM/MW
Radio Stations and Greater Separtation : Frequency and
Distance between the Radio Stations : 10 kHz and 100
Miles needs to be expanded to 20-30 kHz and 250+ Miles.

Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
'closed' Clear Channel.

or better yet - why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
- - - Leave AM Radio Alone ) ~ RHF
*.
*.
. .
On Mar 10, 9:24 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:



"RHF" wrote in message

ups.com...

Long Term IBOC FM "HD" Radio would give them :
1 - Better Overall Local Market Signal Coverage
2 - Better Sound Quality and the 'option' for a
Second Audio {Data} Channel.
3 - Plus Younger Listener Demographics
- - - So . . . *Why Waste the Time, Money and
Technology on IBOC AM "HD" Radio which as
you admit is at best a short term lossing game.

There is a real simple reason and that is based on the fact that nearly all
broadcast companies are publicly held. Moving a big n/t station *to FM and
abandoning the AM to a lesser format would require a write-down of the book
asset value of the property, which would affect earnings.

Bonneville, held by the LDS, can afford to do this kind of dramatic move.
Most of the rest will have to slowly move to simulcasts and gradual
adjustments in the values of assets, rather than just pulling the lug; HD
may offer some alternatives, such as niche music formats, too... it is a
hedge play... and for a big AM, not particularly expensive. As an example,
changing a 50 kw AM in LA to HD with a brand new transmitter is less than
$250,000 in a market where bigger stations typically bill $40 million to $60
million a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Rethinking AM's Future"

"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of
reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the
anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public
summaries whether a station is on the air."

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html

AM-HD is pretty much dead, anyway. The FCC has put out a podcast on
RadioInk about IBOC.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" wrote:

Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
'closed' Clear Channel.

If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
usable than the analog signal.


"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of
reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the
anecdotal evidence suggests. Ibiquity no longer reports in its public
summaries whether a station is on the air."

And those 175 represent about 90% of the viable AMs in the top 100 markets.

David Frackelton Gleason, so bad as a boy, his mama sent him away to be a
remittance man, wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" wrote:

Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
'closed' Clear Channel.

If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
usable than the analog signal.

More usable QRM... hmmmm

Edweenie, you'd best run along, and please, take your dog and pony show with
you, retard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mar 12, 4:33?pm, dxAce wrote:
David Frackelton Gleason, so bad as a boy, his mama sent him away to be a

remittance man, wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
On Mar 12, 10:17?am, "RHF" wrote:

Why Not a 15KW, 20KW or 25KW "HD" Digital AM/MW
Radio Signal which should be as effective as a 50KW Analog
Radio Signal for a Radio Station that is Broadcasting on an
'closed' Clear Channel.

If the current 1/100th of analog power works fine in the useful / usable
signal range of the analog signal, just a slight increase will make HD more
usable than the analog signal.

More usable QRM... hmmmm

Edweenie, you'd best run along, and please, take your dog and pony show with
you, retard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

DE is just trying to make all the DX'ers miserable, by dooming the SW
and AM bands - but wait, IBOC to the rescue !!!