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)

"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.

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 and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV?

Best bet right now is that that's not going to happen. "Core spectrum",
into which all DTV will be placed, is channels 2-51.

The FCC changed their minds twice about which spectrum to allocate.
First, they said all DTV would be UHF. Then, they amended "core" to
read channels 7-51. Finally, they seemed to conclude not all stations
could be accomodated in 7-51, and added 2-6 to the list.

My employer, whose analog signal is on channel 4, drew digital channel
10. Our biggest competitor has an analog signal on channel 5 and a
digital on channel 56. They'll be forced to move their digital signal
to channel 5 after the analog signs off. Channel 6 in Philadelphia drew
digital channel 64, and will also be forced to move back to VHF after
analog closes. There are many other examples.

My guess is that the VHF stations didn't want to surrender the coverage
(and power efficiency) advantages of the lower channels; and the
land-mobile interests didn't want the large antennas and susceptibility
to sporadic-E interference inherent in VHF.

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.

FM indeed lies between channels 6 and 7 - just above channel 6. (you
can receive channel 6 audio on most FM radios)

The FCC has recently authorized "in band on channel" digital radio
broadcasts in the current 88-108 band.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:


The FCC changed their minds twice about which spectrum to allocate.
First, they said all DTV would be UHF. Then, they amended "core" to
read channels 7-51. Finally, they seemed to conclude not all stations
could be accomodated in 7-51, and added 2-6 to the list.



It sure is a shame they didn't go through with their original plan. I
would have liked to have seen channels 2-6, or at least channels 5 and
6, given over to the FM broadcast band. Just think of how IBOC and LPFM
might have worked out if the FM band had a little room to expand!

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?


Nothing.

As soon as the conversion to D-TV is complete, the TV stations which were
temporarily relocated to other channels, some to VHF, but most to UHF, can
return to their original channel, but on digital.

I get a nice signal from WSMV-DT on my Channel Master UHF antenna here
in Bowling Green. Of course 56 booms in but 10's pic is much better.
Of course maybe I'm just prejudiced. HA

Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't
receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get
Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full
copy. Must be multipath...

Ben
W4WSM

My employer, whose analog signal is on channel 4, drew digital channel
10. Our biggest competitor has an analog signal on channel 5 and a
digital on channel 56. They'll be forced to move their digital signal
to channel 5 after the analog signs off. Channel 6 in Philadelphia drew
digital channel 64, and will also be forced to move back to VHF after
analog closes. There are many other examples.

My

Tony Calguire wrote:
It sure is a shame they didn't go through with their original plan. I
would have liked to have seen channels 2-6, or at least channels 5 and
6, given over to the FM broadcast band. Just think of how IBOC and LPFM
might have worked out if the FM band had a little room to expand!

That's an interesting question: could two TV channels worth of spectrum
(12MHz) provide enough room to give each analog FM BC station a digital
counterpart without using IBOC?

Since IBOC-AM seems to (more-or-less?!) work within 15KHz or so of
bandwidth, it would seem a functional system with adequate quality to
replace FM could be made to work with 120KHz available to each station.

But the FCC had a hard enough time fitting the DTV assignments into the
channels they have. Even dropping one or two might prove a serious
problem...
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

In article ,
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

But the FCC had a hard enough time fitting the DTV assignments into the
channels they have. Even dropping one or two might prove a serious
problem...

There would be enough bandwidth in a couple of 6-MHz TV channels to
make Eureka 147 work for every station in most markets....

On a more politically-correct note, there are interference constraints
between 8VSB transmissions on channel 6 and NCE-FM assignments which
resulted in very few TV stations being allocated DTV 6. (I think I
only found two when I looked. One of the original assignments was for
WCTX New Haven (moving from 59); they found that the constraints on
their power as a channel 6 were so confining that they arranged an
allocation swap with very-low-power WEDY New Haven, which didn't need
the coverage.) So it's conceivable that, after the transitional
period is through, channel 6 could still be cleared for other
purposes.

-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)