Wasn't this supposed to be the idea behind the high-powered stations?

National full-service coverage?

I believe each city should be limited to maximum six or eight MW
stations.

Two high powered 50 kilowatt stations, the rest would be 10,000 or
lower local/regional channels.

In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should
be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?)

Want specialist programming? That's what FM is for.

--
Stephanie Weil
New York City, NY

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wasn't this supposed to be the idea behind the high-powered stations?

National full-service coverage?

Theat was the idea, back in the 30's. Of course, that was pre-TV. Then, the
bulk of radio listening was in the home at night.

Today, the bulk of listening is in the car or at work (two thirds of all
listening) and in the daytime. Night listening is one third of daytime
levels (7 to midnight) and AM night listening is very limited.

I believe each city should be limited to maximum six or eight MW
stations.

The model in the US has always been based on whatever would work tecnically.
Unfortunately, between a half and two-thirds of metro area AMs are
inadequate to cover the market they serve, as they were either designed in
the 30's or 40's before urban sprawl, or they are daytimers or showehorned
in directional monsters.

There are some markets, like Washington, DC, that do not have a single full
market coverage AM.

Two high powered 50 kilowatt stations, the rest would be 10,000 or
lower local/regional channels.

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should
be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?)

Nobody would put up with the fading and static and interference on a
national Am today. This is not the 30's. And younger, under 35 listeners,
have no use fo rhte sound quality of the AM band.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event, night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on 1600
is nearly true.

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

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event, night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on 1600
is nearly true.

I assume you meant 540, not 1540.

I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters in the
USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies, evenly spaced across
the country would cover the entire lower 48 day and night. It won't
happen, of course, because nobody owns radios that cover LW besides
radio nerds like us.

"Somebody Somewhere" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event,
night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on
the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of
frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on
1600
is nearly true.

I assume you meant 540, not 1540.

Yep. thanks for spotting this.

I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters in the
USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies, evenly spaced across
the country would cover the entire lower 48 day and night. It won't
happen, of course, because nobody owns radios that cover LW besides
radio nerds like us.

Unfortunately, nobody but the over 40 crowd will put up with AM quality, and
it would be a losing proposition from the start.

SbSw,

"I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters
in the USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies,
evenly spaced across the country would cover the entire
lower 48 day and night."

i like that idea ~ RHF

SW,

"In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should

be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?) "

i like that idea ~ RHF

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...
SW,

"In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should

be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?) "

Americans increasingly will not listen to even local AM-quality radio. they
certainly would not listen to fady, erratic SW.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...
SW,

"In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should

be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?) "

Americans increasingly will not listen to even local AM-quality radio.
they certainly would not listen to fady, erratic SW.

Glad you have a good grasp on your tiny little world Eduardo.. but a lot of
the rest of us belong to a great big world with a lot of other choices
besides the ones that the NAB wants to cram down our throats. I don't
personally know ANYBODY outside of broadcasting that want's to put up with
IBOC, and I know several BE's (and I am one of them) that consider it
nothing but a QRM generator, and a major PITA to work with. Not to mention
that anyone outside a few mile radius from the transmitter can't hear the
digital signal to start with. This is proven by anecdotal evidence of
numerous people who have purchased the $300 BA (down from $500) and
attempted to use it in their local signal areas.

Tell me something, Eduardo.. are people going to put up big outside
antennas, or random wire AM antennas, just to hear a crappy digital signal
full of artifacts? I don't think so. The majority of listeners now are using
boom box radios and don't bother to even put the antenna up on them most of
the time. I'm pretty sure they're not going to spend big $$$ on a piece of
**** radio, then have to put up antennas to use it. Ain't gonna happen. I
suppose you think that you're going to hear the sound of half a billion (or
more) analog radios hitting the trash can? I think it much more likely that
will be a few hundred IBOC transmitters hitting the landfill.