| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
It’s a dramatic idea that would change infrastructure reaching back to the
very roots of our industry. A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM stations. The group, calling itself the Broadcast Maximization Committee, recommends the conversion and migration of all AM stations over an extended period of time and with digital transmissions only. It also proposes relocating the LPFM service to a portion of this spectrum and expanding the NCE service into the adjacent portion. The group made its proposal in a filing to the FCC as part of the broadcast diversity proceeding (Docket 07-294). Comments in that proceeding were due this week. Other organizations also have used the proceeding to discuss how the radio spectrum should be structured; but these comments are likely to draw new attention to the plight of AM stations and possible ways to help the occupants of the senior band. Engineering Consultant John Mullaney, a proponent of using Channels 5 and 6 for radio, is part of BMC. Noting that similar proposals to use that space for radio stations have been dismissed by the commission as premature until the DTV transmission is done, the group says the time is ripe for this proposal. Although LPFMs and NCE stations would benefit, AMs would gain the most, the group contends. The proposal would move virtually all AM stations to the new band. The engineers lay out a plan under which all or most of the current AM occupants would move and parts of the existing band would be designated for users like municipalities and LPAM stations. “For clear-channel (Class A) AM stations we are proposing that the FCC will increase existing protections on the AM band and possibly re-allocate the Class As that stay in such a way that they will have enough protection from other AM stations so that they can operate HD Radio day and night without creating interference,” BMC member Bert Goldman told Radio World. “This reduction in AM noise will allow the remaining Class A stations to increase their daytime and nighttime interference-free service by removing all other AM stations.” Each channel is anticipated to be structured in such a way that the station may decide if they want greater robustness of signal (and greater coverage like in rural locations) or less robustness and up to four program channels. BMC is not proposing a digital standard at this time. BMC has also proposed a way to move the estimated 24 post-transition DTV stations out of Channels 5 and 6. The proposal is signed by Mullaney, Goldman, Mark Lipp, Paul H. Reynolds, Joseph Davis, Clarence Beverage, Laura Mizrahi, Lee Reynolds and Alex Walsh. Nuts and Bolts of BMC’s AM Migration Plan 8.01.2008 Here are the nuts and bolts of the Broadcast Maximization Committee’s proposal http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0100/t.14794.html to use old TV spectrum for a migration of AM stations. Under the BMC plan, AMs could transition to the Channel 5/6 spectrum (100 channels 77.0 to 86.9 MHz) and operate in the digital mode. In this way, AMs “can solve the current digital problems they are experiencing, especially at night,” the group states in its proposal. BMC is proposing to: Extend the FM band to include frequencies 76.1 to 87.7 MHz FM Expanded Band (EXB) with a 100 kHz channel spacing, creating 117 new channels. The first eight channels (87.0 to 87.7 MHz) would be reserved NCE channels since they are contiguous to the current NCE band. The next 100 channels (77.0 to 86.9 MHz) would be used to migrate AM stations to the proposed FM new EXB band channels, where they would operate in digital mode. One channel on 76.9 MHz would be set aside for NOAA DHS use nationwide. The last eight channels (76.1 to 76.8 MHz) would be for LPFM use. The vacated AM band (540 to 1700 kHz) would open up for multiple uses, including improved AM broadcast service or other use. While the policies, standards and priorities for an AM migration would need to be developed, BMC has offered a technical plan to show that its proposal is possible and to encourage further discussions. “Above all, AM stations can become competitive, financially viable and immediately have some hope for better days.” |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 6, 4:47*pm, wrote:
- Seems like a crazy Idea. - The first thing that struck me was new radio's - would have to be purchased for the plan to be effective. HINT - All those 'new' Radios would be IBOC Certified and all the 'new' Expanded FM Band Broadcasters would be Digital "Only". behind every plan is an evil scheme ~ RHF |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
|
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Dave" wrote in message ... m II wrote: wrote: It's a dramatic idea that would change infrastructure reaching back to the very roots of our industry. A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country's AM stations. Looks like a sleazy way to be able to charge people for what they now get for nothing. There's no other explanation. Why don't they move the interference causing IBOC station up there instead of the normal AM operations? This thing isn't designed to save AM. If it's true that there isn't an audience now, why should being forced to buy a new radio solve the problem? Once everything is digital, the subscriber card needed to make it all work is with us. mike What about places where FM doesn't work? AM radio is all we got. Not to mention that the VHF TV channels are NOT going away when analog goes dark next February. Those with analog channels on VHF and DTV on UHF will, for the most part, move their DTV to their VHF channels when analog goes dark. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... m II wrote: wrote: It's a dramatic idea that would change infrastructure reaching back to the very roots of our industry. A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country's AM stations. Looks like a sleazy way to be able to charge people for what they now get for nothing. There's no other explanation. Why don't they move the interference causing IBOC station up there instead of the normal AM operations? This thing isn't designed to save AM. If it's true that there isn't an audience now, why should being forced to buy a new radio solve the problem? Once everything is digital, the subscriber card needed to make it all work is with us. mike What about places where FM doesn't work? AM radio is all we got. Not to mention that the VHF TV channels are NOT going away when analog goes dark next February. Those with analog channels on VHF and DTV on UHF will, for the most part, move their DTV to their VHF channels when analog goes dark. Oh, also, the bandplan bytes... channels are too close together at 100 KHz, especially for LPFM's which are required by law to maintain a minimum 600 KHz spacing. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
Dave wrote:
What about places where FM doesn't work? AM radio is all we got. I should have been clearer in my posting. If they move anything out of the AM band, it should be only the IBOC noise makers. All the normal AM stations stay exactly where they are. In my own case, I listen to more AM than FM. I can't help but think that moving the whole of the AM band to another venue will be nothing more than a money grab, with pay as you go subscription cards. mike -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / / / /\ \/ /\ \/This space for rent/\ \/ /\ \/ / /_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ Densa International© 'Think tanks cleaned cheap' Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. I also filter everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
wrote in message ... Seems like a crazy Idea. The first thing that struck me was new radio's would have to be purchased for the plan to be effective. But in the mean time what would people do? The Am band is struggling as is and because of the Internet and more new competitive devices Fm radio is in danger too. Yeah, crazy idea is right. Lots of radio stations can't draw an audience now even though everybody already has a radio. These guys want to fix it by starting up a new radio band. I can't wait until this concept is applied to retailing. Struggling stores try to save the business by moving to the new mall out in the middle of the desert. I guess the government would issue a coupon or something to help ease the financial pain of buying new radios. And the old ones could be sold on E-bay. LOL Let's not forget government coupons for all the batteries the digital portables will eat. The unused band would be great for low power, and college radio operators. The more I think about this the more I like it.. We might have some interesting content on the radio again.. LOL If Big Radio is already doomed on AM, what difference will the proposed bandplan make? Frank Dresser |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
wrote:
A group made up primarily of broadcast *consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the *United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the *reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM *stations. * Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. Art |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 7, 1:06*pm, Art Harris wrote:
wrote: *A group made up primarily of broadcast *consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the *United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the *reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM *stations. * - Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw - clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. - 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. - Art Local 100 Watt Repeaters |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 7, 7:39*am, m II wrote:
Dave wrote: What about places where FM doesn't work? *AM radio is all we got. I should have been clearer in my posting. If they move anything out of the AM band, it should be only the IBOC noise makers. All the normal AM stations stay exactly where they are. In my own case, I listen to more AM than FM. I can't help but think that moving the whole of the AM band to another venue will be nothing more than a money grab, with pay as you go subscription cards. mike -- The AM/MW Radio Band in the USA needs to have the number of Radio Stations reduced by Half to 2/3rds or even down to 1/4th. Move the excess AM/MW Radio Stations to an expanded FM Radio Band that is All Digital. ~ RHF |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 6, 3:46*pm, wrote:
*It’s a dramatic idea that would change infrastructure reaching back to the *very roots of our industry. *A group made up primarily of broadcast *consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the *United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the *reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM *stations. * The group, calling itself the Broadcast Maximization Committee, *recommends the conversion and migration of all AM stations over an extended *period of time and with digital transmissions only. * It also proposes *relocating the LPFM service to a portion of this spectrum and expanding the *NCE service into the adjacent portion. * The group made its proposal in a *filing to the FCC as part of the broadcast diversity proceeding (Docket *07-294). Comments in that proceeding were due this week. Other *organizations also have used the proceeding to discuss how the radio *spectrum should be structured; but these comments are likely to draw new *attention to the plight of AM stations and possible ways to help the *occupants of the senior band. * Engineering Consultant John Mullaney, a *proponent of using Channels 5 and 6 for radio, is part of BMC. Noting that *similar proposals to use that space for radio stations have been dismissed *by the commission as premature until the DTV transmission is done, the *group says the time is ripe for this proposal. *Although LPFMs and NCE *stations would benefit, AMs would gain the most, the group contends. The *proposal would move virtually all AM stations to the new band. * The *engineers lay out a plan under which all or most of the current AM *occupants would move and parts of the existing band would be designated for *users like municipalities and LPAM stations. *“For clear-channel (Class A) *AM stations we are proposing that the FCC will increase existing *protections on the AM band and possibly re-allocate the Class As that stay *in such a way that they will have enough protection from other AM stations *so that they can operate HD Radio day and night without creating *interference,” BMC member Bert Goldman told Radio World. *“This reduction *in AM noise will allow the remaining Class A stations to increase their *daytime and nighttime interference-free service by removing all other AM *stations.” *Each channel is anticipated to be structured in such a way that *the station may decide if they want greater robustness of signal (and *greater coverage like in rural locations) or less robustness and up to four *program channels. BMC is not proposing a digital standard at this time.. *BMC has also proposed a way to move the estimated 24 post-transition DTV *stations out of Channels 5 and 6. *The proposal is signed by Mullaney, *Goldman, Mark Lipp, Paul H. Reynolds, Joseph Davis, Clarence Beverage, *Laura Mizrahi, Lee Reynolds and Alex Walsh. * * Nuts and Bolts of BMC’s AM Migration Plan 8.01.2008 *Here are the nuts and bolts of the Broadcast Maximization Committee’s *proposal http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0100/t.14794.html to use old *TV spectrum for a migration of AM stations. *Under the BMC plan, AMs could *transition to the Channel 5/6 spectrum (100 channels 77.0 to 86.9 MHz) and *operate in the digital mode. In this way, AMs “can solve the current *digital problems they are experiencing, especially at night,” the group *states in its proposal. * BMC is proposing to: Extend the FM band to *include frequencies 76.1 to 87.7 MHz FM Expanded Band (EXB) with a 100 kHz *channel spacing, creating 117 new channels. The first eight channels (87.0 *to 87.7 MHz) would be reserved NCE channels since they are contiguous to *the current NCE band. The next 100 channels (77.0 to 86.9 MHz) would be *used to migrate AM stations to the proposed FM new EXB band channels, where *they would operate in digital mode. One channel on 76.9 MHz would be set *aside for NOAA DHS use nationwide. The last eight channels (76.1 to 76..8 *MHz) would be for LPFM use. The vacated AM band (540 to 1700 kHz) would *open up for multiple uses, including improved AM broadcast service or other *use. While the policies, standards and priorities for an AM migration would *need to be developed, BMC has offered a technical plan to show that its *proposal is possible and to encourage further discussions. * “Above all, AM *stations can become competitive, financially viable and immediately have *some hope for better days.” * * * * * I think the problem here is AM radio, as it exists today, would make no sense relocated to VHF. The benefits of medium wave AM radio: 1. Daytime coverage: Ground wave propagation exists down here. A reasonably powerful AM station can cover a much broader geographic area during the daytime than a VHF FM station. 2. Nighttime coverage: Skywave allows relatively strong regional coverage. 3. Cheapness. An AM radio can be very cheap. Moving an AM station to VHF would eliminate ALL of the above advantages. It would simultaneously address AM's worst disadvantage: medium fidelity sound at BEST, and serious nighttime interference making reception pointless, at worst. But my take is, AM has already adapted into niches where high fidelity and absolutely quiet no-interference reception is not required or expected. The bottom line: if AM stations would benefit from moving up to VHF, they would have probably moved to the FM band a long time ago. There's a reason they're on AM (niche/limited appeal programming, mostly). Asking people to buy yet another radio to listen to narrowcast content will probably not fly on 76-88 Mhz unless the radios are CHEAP and the content is FREE. Otherwise, it's just another XM/Sirius deal but delivered terrestrial, and that would probably flop. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 7, 1:53*pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:39*am, m II wrote: Dave wrote: What about places where FM doesn't work? *AM radio is all we got. I should have been clearer in my posting. If they move anything out of the AM band, it should be only the IBOC noise makers. All the normal AM stations stay exactly where they are. In my own case, I listen to more AM than FM. I can't help but think that moving the whole of the AM band to another venue will be nothing more than a money grab, with pay as you go subscription cards. mike -- The AM/MW Radio Band in the USA needs to have the number of Radio Stations reduced by Half to 2/3rds or even down to 1/4th. Move the excess AM/MW Radio Stations to an expanded FM Radio Band that is All Digital. ~ RHF * I think everyone would agree that medium wave is badly overcrowded, especially if you listen to the jumbled mess you can often hear at night. However, given the MASSIVE duplication of programming content on AM radio -- especially at night when you can't swing a dead cat without hearing "Coast to Coast AM" on about a zillion different stations, but even during the daytime with syndicated shows being found on multiple places on the dial almost anywhere you go, why not just get rid of the excess stations? If a station doesn't carry some minimum of locally-produced content, why not just cancel their license? It's hard to argue that being the third or fourth station in a market to carry Sean Hannity or Doctor Laura is in the public interest in any significant way. It's just wasting spectrum. If the stations can't come up with their own content, they should go dark and leave room for stations that can. Problem solved. And better programming results when the remaining stations serve their communities. Simple! |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
|
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
Drifter wrote:
you right and i'm all for that. i get so tired of the hate and lies on talk radio. And it comes from both sides of the political scene. The Hosts on those shows are just entertainers. It is in their own interest to get the audience worked up. If that takes mis-representation or sensationalism to do, that is what they do. It's junk information. Talk radio is to Truth as Pro wrestling is to Sport. mike -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / / / /\ \/ /\ \/This space for rent/\ \/ /\ \/ / /_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ Densa International© 'Think tanks cleaned cheap' Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. I also filter everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
|
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
|
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Art Harris" wrote in message ... wrote: A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM stations. Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Art Harris" wrote in message ... wrote: A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM stations. Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. You are so full of it Eduardo. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Art Harris" wrote in message ... wrote: A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country's AM stations. Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. You are so full of it Eduardo. I invite you to talk to any group manager in radio. I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 9, 7:14�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. Same problem with IBOC - the FCC could mandate the radios into cars, but no one buys radios, anymore - moving the AMs would antiquate hundreds-of-millions old analog radios, and no one would notice, or care. Radio is dying, no mattter what is done - stocks are in the ****ter, layoffs are everywhere, and stations are being sold for fractions of original prices. Terrestrial radio is dying, and nothing will stop the bleeding. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 9, 7:25*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Art Harris" wrote in message ... wrote: *A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country’s AM stations. Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. Almost 50% of radio listening is done in cars - almost zero at home. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Art Harris" wrote in message ... wrote: A group made up primarily of broadcast consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends the reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country's AM stations. Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't going to cut it. The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. You are so full of it Eduardo. I invite you to talk to any group manager in radio. I invite you to buy a radio and listen to it. I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. You live in a reality of your own making. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"KaitoWRX911" wrote in message ... The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. Almost 50% of radio listening is done in cars - almost zero at home. The truth is that in-car averages about 30%, with the low being around 24% in New York City and the highs in long-commute markets like LA where it is around 32%. At work and in home account for a bit over a third each. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
David Eduardo wrote:
"Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. 30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Telamon" wrote in message ... I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. You live in a reality of your own making. It's the reality of our entire industry. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. 30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles. You still can when the UT station is off. The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels, not with the stations themselves. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. You live in a reality of your own making. It's the reality of our entire industry. No, it the reality of your imagined industry. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message ... I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. You live in a reality of your own making. It's the reality of our entire industry. The "reality" of your "industry" is that when you try to run it like a factory you ruin the product. You make crap because you have no idea what you're doing. You forget the intangibles and let the number crunchers pick the songs. You have no one to blame but yourselves. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
David Eduardo wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. 30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles. You still can when the UT station is off. The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels, not with the stations themselves. And who dropped the ball when the noise levels were creeping up? |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. How many daytimers were allowed to go to 24 hour operation in the 70s and 80s? One example is WJJD which started wiping out KSL's very listenable nighttime signal in Chicago during that time period. Frank Dresser |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
Frank Dresser wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. How many daytimers were allowed to go to 24 hour operation in the 70s and 80s? One example is WJJD which started wiping out KSL's very listenable nighttime signal in Chicago during that time period. Yep, and one of my very few MW QSL's is from KSL. dxAce Michigan USA |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. 30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles. You still can when the UT station is off. How often is the Utah 890 station off? And when did they start broadcasting at night? The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels, not with the stations themselves. It's my recollection that a number of stations started night time broadcasting on the "clear channel" frequencies around 1980 or so. But, hey, I could be wrong. Nevertheless, in 1968 or 1958 or whatever, the clear channels really were clear channels. Frank Dresser |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all live by the same metrics and information and sales realities. You live in a reality of your own making. It's the reality of our entire industry. The "reality" of your "industry" is that when you try to run it like a factory you ruin the product. You make crap because you have no idea what you're doing. You forget the intangibles and let the number crunchers pick the songs. You have no one to blame but yourselves. Huh? In markets like LA, the one you are in, all the significant stations let the listeners pick the music. And there is an incredible amount of talent on the air, doing spontaneous, live and entertaining radio. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message ... wrote: I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night- time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night. There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. 30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles. You still can when the UT station is off. The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels, not with the stations themselves. And who dropped the ball when the noise levels were creeping up? The FCC has been underfunded for this type of thing for decades. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. How many daytimers were allowed to go to 24 hour operation in the 70s and 80s? One example is WJJD which started wiping out KSL's very listenable nighttime signal in Chicago during that time period. The clears were broken down by the FCC in the 70's, and along with that came the new rules on protection that allowed quite a few stations to add or improve night service. I'd also question if the listenership to KSL in Chicago was over 12 people anyway. Remember, JJD signed off at sunset in SLC, which was in summer late at night in Chicago. Since overall radio listening, since the 50's, has mostly been 6 AM to 7 PM, who would possibly be listening at that hour to KSL? In general, my statement stands. The band is only minutely different today from what it was in 1978. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Frank Dresser wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today. How many daytimers were allowed to go to 24 hour operation in the 70s and 80s? One example is WJJD which started wiping out KSL's very listenable nighttime signal in Chicago during that time period. Yep, and one of my very few MW QSL's is from KSL. That's a real achievement. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... How often is the Utah 890 station off? And when did they start broadcasting at night? For most of its early years in the 80's they were off at night always. And, like any smaller market station, they go off for maintenance and WLS is an easy catch from the SW then. The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels, not with the stations themselves. It's my recollection that a number of stations started night time broadcasting on the "clear channel" frequencies around 1980 or so. But, hey, I could be wrong. Nevertheless, in 1968 or 1958 or whatever, the clear channels really were clear channels. Most, if I recall correctly, were granted in the mid to late 70's and went on as soon as possible I can see that most had a license by 1980 and many, like Grand Junction, much earlier. Since all were directional, we can assume periods of up to several years between CP and license as the directionals are proofed and proven stable. |
Move Am's to channels 5&6?
On Aug 9, 10:53�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"KaitoWRX911" wrote in message ... The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by dozens of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At night, the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that is not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent on the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but it is almost statistically insignificant today. Almost 50% of radio listening is done in cars - almost zero at home. The truth is that in-car averages about 30%, with the low being around 24% in New York City and the highs in long-commute markets like LA where it is around 32%. At work and in home account for a bit over a third each. Bridge Ratings Industry Study : In-Car Media Use Wednesday,, February 7, 2007 Cell Phones, MP3 Players, Video Impacting Radio Listening! http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_0...ia%20incar.htm Ha! Ha! Radio is dying! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com