Dear Newsgroup,

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between
channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would
leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to
auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the
highest bidder.

The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are
monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and
walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable
without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well?

To me, it just doesn't seem right that we need to have change for the sake
of "progress", unless the progress is real and necessary. Many times it
seems that these huge changes in the basic infrastructure of our
communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment
of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without
giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences.

When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of
undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the
developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for
this huge planned change in the FM band?

I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed
change and when it is to occur.

Robert Hovland wrote:
Dear Newsgroup,

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV?

[sneck]

The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are
monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and
walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable
without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well?

Why should Mikey Powell give a rat's ass?

Really... we're going to all have to replace our TV sets when analog
television signals are phased out, aren't we? (At least that's what I've
been led to understand)

I personally have no desire to do so. I have digital cable. There is no
additional attraction to having HDTV.

The people south of here in the Marianas - the hills that separate Apple
Valley, California from San Bernardino - might benefit. But only the people
south or east of the Apple Valley town line, in unincorporated San Bernardino
County, because they can't get cable (Charter's franchises are in Hesperia
and Apple Valley and Victorville, but they don't have an agreement for the
unincorporated areas where not many people live)... and especially in the
Marianas, with the big hills right to the south, satellite might not be an
option either. (Going east of AV towards Lucerne and Big Bear, satellite
should be doable as the hills aren't over there.)

I've *always* considered HDTV to be a solution looking for a problem...

communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment
of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without
giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences.

That's fine. Mikey P. can buy me a new television set. :-P

When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of
undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the
developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for
this huge planned change in the FM band?

There is none. I doubt that anyone at the FCC cares (although I'm sure people
will pipe up and tell me I'm wrong

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

In article ,
Robert Hovland wrote:

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band

The FCC is not so doing, thus the consequences of such an action are
moot. (Just ask your friends at KOTA-DT channel 2.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

Garrett Wollman had written:
| In article ,
| Robert Hovland wrote:
|
| Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
| band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
| their broadcast band
|
| The FCC is not so doing, thus the consequences of such an action are
| moot. (Just ask your friends at KOTA-DT channel 2.)

Evidently a few TVs are doing so already. KCSM San Mateo, CA (secondary PBS
for the San Francisco Bay Area) announced in its March program guide
that it will give up its analog allocation on channel 60 and will
broadcast exclusively as DT on channel 43, multicasting at least
two channels. The second channel will be a jazz channel
complementing KCSM-FM. The primary reason, though, seems to be
economic: "We made the decision that our resources needed to go
toward serving more students by creating a whole new telecourse
'stream', rather than paying what amounts to double rent and
electricity to continue our analog broadcast."

KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be
affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue.


--
"You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place."
-- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004

"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
...

SNIP
The primary reason [for turning off over-the-air analog TV], though, seems
to be
economic: "We made the decision that our resources needed to go
toward serving more students by creating a whole new telecourse
'stream', rather than paying what amounts to double rent and
electricity to continue our analog broadcast."

KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be
affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue.

Amazing.

Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving
only a small percentage of the population? Rural areas surely must still
rely on over-the-air TV.


As an aside, in the news report that Cox Cable and ESPN had made peace it
was reported that Cox will pay ESPN $2.61 per month for each of their cable
subscribers!

[Moderator's Note: Yes, rural areas do, to a certain extent, rely on over-
the-air TV, but in many cases, people probably have DSS or cable, like my
parents who live 40 miles east of Cleveland in Geauga County, Ohio, and get
most of their programming from Dish Network.

Here in Apple Valley, CA, and throughout the (mostly rural) High Desert,
there are probably more people who have to rely on over-the-air signals, but
the Los Angeles stations, which are 90 miles southwest of here, all have
translators sitting on a tower down in Hesperia. The tower isn't well
maintained, though, and I don't know whether Victorville's lone local TV
station, KHIZ-TV 64, has its transmitter in that area or not... my wife says
they don't, actually, and that their transmitter is up in Victorville near
their studio.

But in Apple Valley/Victorville/Hesperia, unless you live outside city limits,
you can get cable from Charter, and up in Barstow, you can get cable from...
mmm... I think it's Time Warner. And in spite of the mountainous terrain,
most homes in this area are properly situated to use DSS also.

Interesting note: Until the recent mandates allowing DSS providers to
carry local stations, my parents had to use an antenna to get Cleveland's
TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from
Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations
from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the
fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I
believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS]

On 20 Feb 2004 19:01:43 GMT, "R J Carpenter"
wrote:


Amazing.

Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving
only a small percentage of the population? Rural areas surely must still
rely on over-the-air TV.


Some years ago, my employer's TV station (since sold) was hit by a
devastating arson fire that wiped out its transmitter. The station
was off the air for weeks, but kept feeding cable headends. Ratings
were unchanged. Hardly any viewers noticed the on-air signal was
gone.

I'm sure the cable penetration is even higher now, although it's been
several years since I checked.

Mark Howell

R J Carpenter had written:
|
| "Mark Roberts" wrote:
|
| KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be
| affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue.
|
| Amazing.
|
| Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving
| only a small percentage of the population?

In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is quite likely. Yet NBC did
suffer a hit when it got into a snit with KRON (from losing the
bidding to buy the station) and flipped the affiliation to KNTV in
San Jose. An estimated 25% of the geographic area lost NBC service
over-the-air, but KNTV quickly arranged with Comcast's predecessor
to ensure cable carriage on area systems. In any event, KNTV has filed
to move to Mt. San Bruno (the site that KCSM-TV is leaving). But the
hit in ratings may have come more from KNTV's image (or lack of image)
in the market and having to compete with the San Francisco incumbent
stations in news. KNTV doesn't seem to be really committing the
resources or the brains to do it consistently right. It's passable
but feels like about Kansas City in quality.

Anyhow, due to the terrain of the Bay Area, as well as its
geographic expanse, there is no site that will serve all
areas well. There will be significant dead spots no matter
where the transmitter is located -- obviously, that's true
for FM as well. The best combination for FM stations seems to be a
Sutro (SF) or Beacon site with on-channel repeaters in the I-680 corridor
in the East Bay. TVs haven't tried that combination, possibly due to
the relatively heavy reliance on cable. KDTV does have a translator
in Santa Rosa (far North Bay), and KRON did have one there until KQED-DT
came on and wiped out channel 30.


--
"You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place."
-- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004

R J Carpenter wrote:

Is all that spectrum bandwidth occupied by over-the-air TV really serving
only a small percentage of the population?

This varies dramatically from market to market -- national "penetration"
numbers for cable and satellite are averages, with some areas much
lower, and others much higher. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, off-air
viewing of the local stations is still common, since we have one of the
lowest cable penetration rates in the country, and not all satellite
subscribers opt to pay the satellite company to provide what they can
receive off-air for free.

TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from
Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations
from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the
fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I
believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS]

Why pay $5/month to get what they're currently getting for free? It
seems a very rational decision to me...especially since the antenna
apparently provides signals from mulitple markets, something that Dish
can't legally offer to them.

Tom Desmond wrote:

TV stations. They're 40 miles from Cleveland, about the same distance from
Erie, PA, and maybe 50 from Youngstown, Ohio, and they could get stations
from all three cities, but the signals weren't very strong. In spite of the
fact that they could pay Dish $5 per month to get Cleveland local TV, I
believe they still use their antenna. I have no clue why. **SJS]

Why pay $5/month to get what they're currently getting for free? It
seems a very rational decision to me...especially since the antenna
apparently provides signals from mulitple markets, something that Dish
can't legally offer to them.

Because none of the stations come in clear. I guess they don't mind having
snow on the TV as well as on the front lawn...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

"Robert Hovland" wrote in message
...

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV?

No, they don't have to switch to new channels. They have a choice of using
the DTV on either of their channels. I'd imagine that many would choose
their VHF channel if DTV turns out to work well there.

As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between
channels 6 and 7,

As are hundreds of other services.

I would be surprised if the FCC would
leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out.

I see no connection what-so-ever between the TV switch to digital and any
effect on the FM band or any other services between 88 and 174 MHz. It
isn't as though FM stations were given a second frequency and have to choose
between it and their current one.

They want to
auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the
highest bidder.

Right.

The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are
monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and
walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable
without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well?

I'd say that there is 0.00000000000001 % chance that the FM band would be
moved. Where would it be moved to? TV was already allocated the UHF
channels where much of DTV is located. Anyhow, some DTV stations are
already on VHF, including channel 2. There is no other FM band for the
stations to move to.

I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed
change and when it is to occur.

Who said there was a proposed change for FM? I think you are making this up
from whole cloth.

TV is allocated a HUGE bandwidth. Modern receivers allow much closer
spacing on UHF. The FCC is chosing to reclaim and sell some of this wasted
bandwidth as part of the DTV situation. There is no parallel in FM.