Rrrado Rn wrote:
I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.
No one was claiming protection to infinity.

Then to what point then?

Just enough so you can DX the stations you want?


Another absurdity.



The FCC has already decided to what point stations deserve protection....

And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

Again, taking your "iboc interference" argument to it's ilogical confusion.



Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****. That's part of the definition of absurdity.

The truth is, that protection from interference has been happening
for nearly 3/4's of a century. Both within the borders and internationally.

FCC policy had always been such that new stations may be inserted
into the bandplan by specifying and guaranteeing protection from
interference of co-and adjacent channel operators in other markets. And
modifications may be made to a pattern by guaranteeing additional
protection to co and adjacent operators in other markets. Protection,
however, may not be taken away, ie, there may not be a relaxation of
interference protection.

Internationally, frequency assignments are also made to minimize
interference, ie., offer protection from interference of stations in
other locations.

In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

IBOC, however, introduces interference. Not just for co and adjacent
channels, but for second and sometimes third adjacents. Interference for
stations in other markets. To the degree that a station may interfere
with local listening in another market.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their
own facility there. So there's no misunderstanding, let me be
clear...Salem turned off their IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from
the Chicago station were interfering with Milwaukee listeners' ability
to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

That's not a DX ing experience.

At my own location, I have had trouble for the past two years
listening to WLS, a LOCAL station, because of IBOC sideband interference
from an out of market station.

No DXing, there, either.

Now, there have been stations sharing frequencies for decades. And
doing so without interfering with each other. IBOC, however, creates
interference, and has been given the green light to remove interference
protection for stations across the country on first second and third
adjacents. Limiting choice. Limiting listening. Even in one's local market.

DXing is a separate issue.

Radio World, a couple of years ago, told the story of a small station
in near Washington, DC, wiped out in it's local market by the second
adjacent sideband of a Washington station. Out of market station,
interfering with a LOCAL station in it's own, protected, market.

The same article illuminated other stations suffering loss of local
coverage within it's own market from IBOC interference.

The industry says, tough ****. Too few listeners to worry about.

For an industry licensed to serve the public interest as a public
trustee, that's a direct abrogation of its responsibilities.

An arrogance that's not been earned.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

All AM frequencies are / were protected by NARBA, and FM is protected within
specified distances of the US border by Canada and Mexico in a mutual
agreement; Bahamas protects the NARBA AM assignments, but not FM.

So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

NARBA was implemented in March of 1942. Many nearby countries, starting with
Cuba, do not observe it any longer, and ones like Haiti, the Caymans, etc.
never did.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. [/quote]

No, they turned it off because the fringe listening to the 540 facility was
supposedly impacted. Since preaching and teaching depends on donations, this
seemed to be a factor to them... besides the fact that Salem does not put HD
on it's AMs.

So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem turned off their
IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago station were interfering
with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

No, they turned it off because the company does not support HD and the
Chicago HD was impacting 540 in its deep fringe areas. And I can see the
Salem engineering office from where I sit.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

All AM frequencies are / were protected by NARBA, and FM is protected within
specified distances of the US border by Canada and Mexico in a mutual
agreement; Bahamas protects the NARBA AM assignments, but not FM.
So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

NARBA was implemented in March of 1942. Many nearby countries, starting with
Cuba, do not observe it any longer, and ones like Haiti, the Caymans, etc.
never did.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. [/quote]

No, they turned it off because the fringe listening to the 540 facility was
supposedly impacted. Since preaching and teaching depends on donations, this
seemed to be a factor to them... besides the fact that Salem does not put HD
on it's AMs.

So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem turned off their
IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago station were interfering
with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

No, they turned it off because the company does not support HD and the
Chicago HD was impacting 540 in its deep fringe areas. And I can see the
Salem engineering office from where I sit.



I knew I could on you to provide the necessary pedantry to further
your agenda.

But, again, you're not listening.

So, have a nice sermon.

And, good evening.


p

Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****.

That's what happens when you take your argument to it's (il)logical
conclusion!

IBOC, however, introduces interference. Not just for co and adjacent
channels, but for second and sometimes third adjacents. Interference for
stations in other markets. To the degree that a station may interfere
with local listening in another market.

Who decides what contours are for "local listening"? The FCC does.

They have not found this to be a problem.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem
turned off their IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago
station were interfering with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy
Salem's Milwaukee station.

Again, what is local? 5 miles? 10? 25? 75? 175?

That's not a DX ing experience.

If it's outside of the city-grade contour, then it's DX...maybe not
skip...but still DX (distance)

At my own location, I have had trouble for the past two years listening
to WLS, a LOCAL station, because of IBOC sideband interference from an out
of market station.

No DXing, there, either.

What is your zip code....and what station interferes with WLS?

The industry says, tough ****. Too few listeners to worry about.

Just like the listeners that would ask stations to turn off their stereo
generators...becuuse it made it hard for them to pick up.

For an industry licensed to serve the public interest as a public
trustee, that's a direct abrogation of its responsibilities.

They serve the masses...not individuals.

BROADcasting....not individualcasting.

An arrogance that's not been earned.

Nor by listeners who believe "it's all about me".

Rrrado Rn wrote:
Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****.

That's what happens when you take your argument to it's (il)logical
conclusion!



You have "Pancho Syndrome." You argue regardless of what's being said.

Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

Stay within the real. That's where the discussion is. Or not. Your
choice.

Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.

On Jul 11, 7:27*am, Dave wrote:
wrote:

Except there are some stations that are programming for the baby
boomer generation. *So, why would they bother doing that if radio is a
dying medium??

What stations would those be?

There are at least 2 FM stations in the Chicago market that are
programmed for the baby boomer generation. I don't know about the am
side as I don't listen to am.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message

om.
..

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you
dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data
comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

Good thing as you can't sell anytime here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

SNIP

Yes, what you claim to be facts are pretty sad. Good call for once.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.




Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
Rendering his point pointless.