J
Joylovepulse967
Guest
Please check my friend YouTube video telling about it http://youtu.be/WluuSNxxQYg
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
M
mrtejano
Guest
In my opinion if these stations you mentioned wanted to cover more than their area they would buy some translators of their own in other markets.
So very true...with repacking and ATSC3 coming, the lowband channels may see a lot of use again.....Personally I think it WOULD be nice if the US FM band was extended down to 76MHz but it's not gonna happen in my lifetime...
Commercial FM stations can't use translators to extend their coverage. Only non-commercial ones can.
??? There are quite a few translators of commercial FMs in northern Arizona alone, and I don't think all are used just to fill holes in their coverage areas.
Are those independently owned? There are many cases , particularly in the west, of third parties building translators to bring additional signals into an under-served market area. That is legal, as the station does not own the translator.
Is it possible for the station owner to rent a translator to extend their area?
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
The FCC rules say (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the station being retransmitted cannot provide any kind of monetary support for a translator that extends their signal beyond its protected contour, so I suspect "rent" would fall into that category and make the answer "no".
Ah yes, there are several translators in Northern Arizona that extend the coverage area of the main station to a city outside the 60 dBu contour. Yes they are "independently owned" but a few of them may collect money indirectly from the primary station. I know of one where the translator is owned by a consultant of the station. Sure it is an "independent owner" but fails the arm's length test.
Why would we want to do that? It isn't going to happen. Ever.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
No paper trail = no FCC action.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
I think it's laughable that one "friend" making a YouTube video thinks he's going to somehow change a FCC policy which has been restated several times over the years.
JLP, tell your friend he's trying to push a rope uphill.
But he used his strength meter.
Finally, someone gets the reality of the situation. I've been shouting this to anyone at Radio World who insists on writing about the ch. 5 & 6/x-band FM proposal as if it's a done deal.
Not only is the FCC determined to send DTV back to VHF but if ATSC 3.0 is approved the band will actually be usable once again for television broadcasting. Tests using OFDM, the transmitting standard behind 3.0, on channel 7 have been very positive. We know it works on hi-VHF. Plus, the FCC has proposed allowing LPTV stations on ch. 6 to multiplex an analog FM channel (87.7) along with DTV programming. So expect to see a lot of LPTV stations apply for this channel when the Commission opens a channel displacement window for low power stations, which is supposed to happen late in 2016.
Radio broadcasters are going to have to face the reality that if they want to unclutter the bands, they need to consider all-digital broadcasting. As it is, analog FM wastes far too much spectrum protecting for interference, leaving 1st and 2nd adjacent channels unused. Once again OFDM, the standard behind digital radio, can permit more stations to be packed closer together without the attendant problems of interference.
Another possibility is looking at the SW and HF bands for a new domestic commercial radio service using DRM. Tests by the DRM Consortium have shown that a 300 watt signal on the 26MHz band using a dipole antenna not much larger than a typical FM antenna and DRM can cover a city very well. Sure, it all requires new radios but so does expanding the FM band using ch. 5 & 6.
Last edited:
D
Darth_vader
Guest
You know, something that COULD have been done right from the start, had they actually gone with open DVB rather than proprietary AT$C. But since when was standardisation with the rest of the world ever a concept here? Follow the money.
1) As I recall, the always forward-thinking FCC decreed long ago that shortwave radio can't be used to deliberately target domestic audiences even though there were (still are) services that very subtlely do just that.
2) Expect the ARRL and other equally stubborn radio NIMBYers to scream and moan and raise all manner of holy hell until the FCC kills it. I guarantee you they would. Hams have more than enough useful spectra that just sit there unused, and god forbid they should actually let pieces of it be put to productive uses for a change. Will absolutely never happen. I mean, look at the stink they're still making about 220 MHz and CB all these years later.
Last edited:
When SW was limited to only international broadcasting, the FCC was promoting local service by creating classes of AM that served smaller communities (Class IV) cities (Regional Channels) and trading zones (Clear Channels). The idea was to promote localized programming, and that was the reason the clear channel stations, despite three decades of lobbying and petitioning up to 1968, never got over the relatively low 50 kw power limit.
Commercial SW stations were, in the 30's, intended to carry American programming overseas. The major networks had SW facilities, but they were closed before the War. We got a few religious SW stations and then a few commercial ones much later. The Christian Scientists had theirs. The Mormons had a moment on SW. Then folks like Costello in New Orleans and Carlson (or similar name) in SLC tried music stations on SW... and failed.
Now the rent-an-hour SW stations run anything, and many of the programs target the US audience. The FCC does not seem to care as those stations barely survive in an era where SW is for all practical purposes, dead in the Western Hemisphere.
D
Darth_vader
Guest
Which brings up another topic if I may forgiven for briefly derailling the thread for it. Since Smith-Mundt, for most practical intents and purposes, was mostly repealled*, what do you suppose the chances of a "VOA domestic" service in the next 10-15 years are on broadcast MW/FM air? I'm thinking... NPR Ibiquity secondary. Supposedly as a result they were airing, for a while, an experimental programme on their shortwave service with slow-scan images that, from what I read, seemed to be targetted specifically at the US.
*National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
*National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
DRM stands for "Dead Radio Moribund." There are only a relative handful of DRM broadcasters on shortwave.
With the sunspot numbers headed toward the 11-year minimum, the 11 meter broadcast band might work for now, but in another 6-7 years, the skip (both E and F2) will be back in, and all kinds of QRM will result if there are a lot of stations there (including the STL links that are there now).
BTW, a 1/2 wave dipole cut for 26.8 MHz is about 17 feet long, much longer than the 5-foot FM dipole antenna.
http://www.wwdxc.de/drm.htm
- Status