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.”

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


--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\ \/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/

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.

"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.

"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.

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/

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

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!

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

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