"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
: ...

: 1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to
assure
a
: balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
:
: So, why doesn't the government also require newspapers to have a
balance
of
: voices and opinions?

Is this a rhetorical question or what? That's the first thing taught in
Mass Media 101. There is a limited amount of spectrum space available
for
utilization. That's one of the reasons why the FCC was (supposedly)
created (I remember when the FCC was NOT a lap dog for the
broadcasters).
To manage a natural resource which supposedly belongs to the people
(although that is now empty rhetoric). The same conditions hardly apply
to
the printed media.

But that limatation has been relaxed. There have been many new licenses
issued since 1980, and there are many more 24 hour stations. Given the
open
situation, I'm sure there many open radio frequencies in most markets.

And you would be wrong. Further, with the coordination/transition to DTV,
there's no
space anywhere, in any market. And besides, twice a finite number is
still a finite
number.

Here in Chicago, we just had an AM xband station go on the air a year ago.
Other frequencies sound open. One street gang related pirate station was
operating on an open FM frequency here. We also have a couple of reletively
new low power UHF stations.


Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?

No, because a licensee should do their part to represent all divergent
views.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the fairnss doctrine should not
apply in those markets?



: Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite
radio,
: satellite TV, and cable TV?

no

Why not? Despite their large bandwidth, satellites don't have an
unlimited
number of frequencies. The FCC currently has jurisdiction over wire
communications, but they generally have never enforced program content
there. Isn't it unfair that fairness, as defined by the government,
isn't
enforced there as well?

Satellite spectrum is, by definition, not broadcast spectrum....it's just
a band that
some operators choose to operate un-encrypted. And subscription satellite
is another
animal altogether, like cable.

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?

If the fairness doctrine is really a good idea, shouldn't it effect every
station a consumer gets?

Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea?



The shortwave stations are a good bargain. Time goes for around a
dollar a
minute, and most of the country gets covered.

Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions. The
reason why
shortwave is a dollar a pop is because the cost on a cpm (cost-per-1000)
basis is,
still, probably higher than the most expensive station in the most
expensive market.

It's hard to say exactly how many people listen. But, as far as the rate
goes, it used to be alot higher back about 20 years ago when stations such
as WRNO and WINB were selling time. Since then, there must have been at
least fifteen SW brokered transmitters going on the air. It's a buyers
market now.

Frank Dresser

wrote in message ...
On 23 Oct 2004 04:13:48 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.

So, why doesn't the government also require newspapers to have a balance
of
voices and opinions?

Did you read the last two words -- public airwaves? Spectrum
was considered a limited resource and government permission was
required to use it. In return, conditions were imposed.

Why are these conditions a good idea?

If these conditions are a good idea, why aren't they a good idea for all the
sources of a person's information?


There is no apparent shortage of newsprint for purchase.


Oh. Is that the only reason we don't have a fairness doctrine for the
newspapers?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
: ...


Here in Chicago, we just had an AM xband station go on the air a year ago.
Other frequencies sound open. One street gang related pirate station was
operating on an open FM frequency here. We also have a couple of reletively
new low power UHF stations.

"Sound" open and being open are two different things. I've had this didact before,
but the gist of it is that the channels that "sound" open are only to allow that
channel to be allocated in other areas, which in the Class C area that Chicago is in
may be far, far away. Putting an allocation on this "open" channel would result in
interference to these far-flung operations, thus reducing their coverage area to less
than what they're allocated to serve. Same goes for the pirate. If you look at a
frequency search map, using the specified minimum distances to each conflicting
allocation, you'll find that there is some apparent "white" areas as a result of the
overlaps (or actually, the effort to make sure they don't overlap).

Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?

No, because a licensee should do their part to represent all divergent
views.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the fairnss doctrine should not
apply in those markets?

I am not. Open channels (assuming that there are any, which certainly isn't the case
in Chicago) mean that there are only a few possible voices that might offer
diversity. But there's still a finite limit to how many voices there will be. This
is different from printed matter or public oratory, where there is no self-limiting
property in the exersize of one's free speech rights. With broadcasting, the
existence of one station prevents the free speech rights of those other "potential"
operations on the same channel, thus depriving these "others" of their free speech
rights. Since the "others" don't have the opportunity, then neither should the
operator of the facility which abridges the "others" of theirs.

Satellite spectrum is, by definition, not broadcast spectrum....it's just
a band that some operators choose to operate un-encrypted.
And subscription satellite is another animal altogether, like cable.

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?

Doesn't matter. People pay for subscription services. They get what they pay for,
and if they don't like what they're hearing, they can cancel. Broadcasting is
different. You can get conventional radio using devices which are readily available,
require no real skills to install or use, and cost at least an order of magnitude
less to acquire. For those who have satellite receivers, after having made the
effort, if they think it's the same, then it is for them. But that doesn't make it
so.

If the fairness doctrine is really a good idea, shouldn't it effect every
station a consumer gets?

As above. Broadcasting is different. The spectrum occupied is granted, in trust, by
the people of the United States. Broadcasters should be held accountable for serving
all those people. Whether they like it or not.

Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea?

Because we've seen what happens when it's not in place.

Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions.
It's hard to say exactly how many people listen. But, as far as the rate
goes, it used to be alot higher back about 20 years ago when stations such
as WRNO and WINB were selling time. Since then, there must have been at
least fifteen SW brokered transmitters going on the air. It's a buyers
market now.

Well, then, that's not exactly what I'd call a good investment, is it? Tell you
what....pay me $500 to spread to the world what you have to say. I promise I'll tell
at least 15 people a day about your message for a month. But I won't tell you how
many people I'll tell, and those that I'll tell may have no means by which to acquire
the service or goods you're selling, at that. Deal?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Here in Chicago, we just had an AM xband station go on the air a year ago.
Other frequencies sound open. One street gang related pirate station was
operating on an open FM frequency here. We also have a couple of reletively
new low power UHF stations.

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 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.

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?

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.

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...

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)

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
: ...


Here in Chicago, we just had an AM xband station go on the air a year
ago.
Other frequencies sound open. One street gang related pirate station
was
operating on an open FM frequency here. We also have a couple of
reletively
new low power UHF stations.

"Sound" open and being open are two different things. I've had this
didact before,
but the gist of it is that the channels that "sound" open are only to
allow that
channel to be allocated in other areas, which in the Class C area that
Chicago is in
may be far, far away. Putting an allocation on this "open" channel would
result in
interference to these far-flung operations, thus reducing their coverage
area to less
than what they're allocated to serve. Same goes for the pirate. If you
look at a
frequency search map, using the specified minimum distances to each
conflicting
allocation, you'll find that there is some apparent "white" areas as a
result of the
overlaps (or actually, the effort to make sure they don't overlap).

Yeah, but isn't that largely a matter of definition and policy? As I
understand, the FCC used to try to keep a 30 kHz spacing between stations in
the same market, now they'll go for 20 kHz. In my opinion, there are
already too damn many stations on the air, using my personal standard of
maximum allowable interference. But if the FCC doesn't much care about more
interference, they could pack more stations in.



Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?

No, because a licensee should do their part to represent all divergent
views.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the fairnss doctrine should
not
apply in those markets?

I am not. Open channels (assuming that there are any, which certainly
isn't the case
in Chicago) mean that there are only a few possible voices that might
offer
diversity. But there's still a finite limit to how many voices there will
be. This
is different from printed matter or public oratory, where there is no
self-limiting
property in the exersize of one's free speech rights. With broadcasting,
the
existence of one station prevents the free speech rights of those other
"potential"
operations on the same channel, thus depriving these "others" of their
free speech
rights. Since the "others" don't have the opportunity, then neither
should the
operator of the facility which abridges the "others" of theirs.

Even if a broadcaster refuses to broadcast an opposing view on his station
or stations, he is only restricting one outlet for the opposing speech. So
what? The Soviet Union had an entirely controlled media. Every paper,
every broadcaster was owned by one monopoly. Yet some version of the truth
got around. Printed material from typewriters and photocopiers were handed
around. Phone calls were made. The Soviet media lies increased cynicism,
not indoctrination. Control of one station or one broadcast network would
be even less persuasive, especially if other outlets for opposing viewpoints
are available.



Satellite spectrum is, by definition, not broadcast spectrum....it's
just
a band that some operators choose to operate un-encrypted.
And subscription satellite is another animal altogether, like cable.

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?

Doesn't matter. People pay for subscription services. They get what they
pay for,
and if they don't like what they're hearing, they can cancel.
Broadcasting is
different. You can get conventional radio using devices which are readily
available,
require no real skills to install or use, and cost at least an order of
magnitude
less to acquire. For those who have satellite receivers, after having
made the
effort, if they think it's the same, then it is for them. But that
doesn't make it
so.

If people don't like what they hear on a broadcast, getting rid if it is
even easier than canceling. They just tune out.

I'm not sure I catch the reason why the fairness doctrine is necessary with
broadcast stations but not necessary with pay services. I don't think it
has to be a jurisdictional thing, as some Congressmen have proposed
extending decency standards to pay services and the internet.


Anyway, I can't think of any reason a satellite direct broadcast service
must be a subscription service. If satellite technology gets cheap enough,
the networks might well launch their own, advertiser supported satellites.
It's also easy enough to imagine the satellite receivers would be easily
affordable.

With cable systems, there's no practical distinction between cable channels
and broadcast channels.



If the fairness doctrine is really a good idea, shouldn't it effect
every
station a consumer gets?

As above. Broadcasting is different. The spectrum occupied is granted,
in trust, by
the people of the United States. Broadcasters should be held accountable
for serving
all those people. Whether they like it or not.

They do serve people, by entertaining them. That's what broadcasting is
good at. Broadcasting is a poor educational media. People who want to
actually learn something read about it. Or converse with someone
knowledgeable. Or, best yet, do it. I suppose broadcasting could be
whipped into a decent educational media with VCRs and tape recorders so
people could go back and forth until they actually understand what's being
discussed, but they hardly ever do. Broadcast information goes into the air
for an ephemeral moment, and then it's gone. Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity
are successful, not because they are informative, but because they're
entertaining.

I suppose there are a few doofuses who think they are getting some sort of
political education from the broadcast loudmouths who are putting on a show
within the limitations of broadcast media.



Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea?

Because we've seen what happens when it's not in place.

The biggest difference I've noticed is there is less boring programming on
Sunday mornings.



Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions.
It's hard to say exactly how many people listen. But, as far as the
rate
goes, it used to be alot higher back about 20 years ago when stations
such
as WRNO and WINB were selling time. Since then, there must have been at
least fifteen SW brokered transmitters going on the air. It's a buyers
market now.

Well, then, that's not exactly what I'd call a good investment, is it?
Tell you
what....pay me $500 to spread to the world what you have to say. I
promise I'll tell
at least 15 people a day about your message for a month. But I won't tell
you how
many people I'll tell, and those that I'll tell may have no means by which
to acquire
the service or goods you're selling, at that. Deal?


It seems to work well for Brother Stair and Doctor Scott!

Frank Dresser

"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!-

"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!-