• 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

Time to expand FM

T

-TJ-

Guest
<font color=3333ff>Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?

This would open up so many new opportunities....... new stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can only help. When you got three group owners in any market doing the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3 FM" does something new !

</font>
 
> Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and
> expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?
>
> This would open up so many new opportunities....... new
> stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can only
> help. When you got three group owners in any market doing
> the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3
> FM" does something new !
>
I think there was a plan to launch stations on 108-110 but those
freqs were given to aircraft instead. IIRC, FM was originally something
like 49-76 MHz. And the AM dial used to end at 1500, then 1600,and now 1700.
 
> Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and
> expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?

Probably would have been simpler to ditch TV channels 5 and 6 as part of the digital conversion and add 76-88 mHz to the FM band (already used for FM in Japan). If nothing else, some of the less desirable AM signals could have been moved over to lessen AM congestion and give them a fighting chance. Not gonna happen, though.
 
It was probably the 80s when a proposal for "FM2" came along in the 220 mHz area..that would have eliminated the 220 mHz ham band. Nothing ever came of it.






> > Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band
> and
> > expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?
> >
> > This would open up so many new opportunities....... new
> > stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can
> only
> > help. When you got three group owners in any market doing
>
> > the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3
> > FM" does something new !
> >
> I think there was a plan to launch stations on 108-110 but
> those
> freqs were given to aircraft instead. IIRC, FM was
> originally something
> like 49-76 MHz. And the AM dial used to end at 1500, then
> 1600,and now 1700.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"There ain't no reason to fight over a woman. There's two more down the street!".."Senisble Don", 700 WLW</P>
 
> It was probably the 80s when a proposal for "FM2" came along
> in the 220 mHz area..that would have eliminated the 220 mHz
> ham band. Nothing ever came of it.
>
>

That's a good thing, I like the idea of pulling out of the lower VHF TV band and using it for FM.

Then again, just how many ships are still using the LW band these days with all the newer forms of communications? There quite a bit of spectrum below AM. Much of what's down there could be moved into some of the gaps above AM.
 
> Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and
> expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?
>
> This would open up so many new opportunities....... new
> stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can only
> help. When you got three group owners in any market doing
> the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3
> FM" does something new !

Who's gonna pay to retrofit every aircraft & control tower in the world with new radios. Not gonna happen. The 108-136 MHz aircraft band is about as sacred as any allocation gets.

If FM were to expand, it would be downward to 76 MHz (where the Japanese FM band starts), eliminating Channels 5 & 6.

Deep down, I get the feeling that the FCC really wants to eliminate the lower VHF TV channels once NTSC TV goes away.

How about this for reallocating those channels:
Channel 2: Amateur radio, expanding the 6-meter ham band to 50-60 MHz.
Channels 3 & 4: Public safety, fixed/mobile.
Channels 5 & 6: FM broadcasting, with LPFM at 76-82 MHz, non-commercial FM 82-90 MHz, and commercial FM at 90-108 MHz.
 
> > It was probably the 80s when a proposal for "FM2" came
> along
> > in the 220 mHz area..that would have eliminated the 220
> mHz
> > ham band. Nothing ever came of it.
> >
> >
>
> That's a good thing, I like the idea of pulling out of the
> lower VHF TV band and using it for FM.
>
> Then again, just how many ships are still using the LW band
> these days with all the newer forms of communications? There
> quite a bit of spectrum below AM. Much of what's down there
> could be moved into some of the gaps above AM.
>
How Bout LW and AM Merge thus having the 150-1700 Open for AM Broadcasting and FM on 76 to 120
 
> > > It was probably the 80s when a proposal for "FM2" came
> > along
> > > in the 220 mHz area..that would have eliminated the 220
> > mHz
> > > ham band. Nothing ever came of it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's a good thing, I like the idea of pulling out of the
>
> > lower VHF TV band and using it for FM.
> >
> > Then again, just how many ships are still using the LW
> band
> > these days with all the newer forms of communications?
> There
> > quite a bit of spectrum below AM. Much of what's down
> there
> > could be moved into some of the gaps above AM.
> >
> How Bout LW and AM Merge thus having the 150-1700 Open for
> AM Broadcasting and FM on 76 to 120
>


Nice idea as far as LW & AM, but I do know there are other services between LW & AM using that spectrum, I'm just thinking that the LW spectrum is being used far less now than previously for navigation, and there are other means being used that are far more popular. I don't think above 108 will work though, there's no way they are going to force a move of the aircraft frequencies, plus those frequencies are in use globally. In the case of going below 88.1, I do think it could work, but the big problem would be to try to convince the TV industry that they need even less spectrum.
 
It's called DAB (Re: Time to expand FM)

> Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and
> expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?
>
> This would open up so many new opportunities....... new
> stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can only
> help. When you got three group owners in any market doing
> the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3
> FM" does something new !
>

With the transition to digital television, the FCC are missing an opportunity here. The current analog channels 11-13 could be cleared for digital audio (maybe some of 10 also, shared with digital TV) and instead of getting rid of UHF channels 57-69 only get rid of channels 62-69 and sell those off for other communication needs.

Why Band III VHF? Basically because the rest of the world are operating or are looking to operate DAB services in this band. DAB equipment is cheap, readily available and is a proven working system. Wal-Mart would easily be able to sell digital sets that are only $5-10 more than current analog radio sets.

Also with DAB there won't be any specific "frequency" associated with the station. Call signs become irrelevant. A national radio network could be built. Current broadcasters would change to become "content providers" as the transmitters would transmit multiple stations on one frequency and there would be fewer transmitters (with more services - 6+ stations per transmitter).

This would prove the challenge to satellite radio, as consumers can pay a low fee for a new receiver and get extra channels in as good (if not better) quality as FM, and not have to pay a subscription. The government would then at a later point get Band II VHF for its own use once everyone has gone to DAB.

Mark.
 
As an aside, it would not be much problem here in Austin. We still only have one station below channel 14, thanks to the efforts of our representative Lyndon Johnson in the sixties. That station is channel 7 and their call letters are still KLBJ!



>
> Deep down, I get the feeling that the FCC really wants to
> eliminate the lower VHF TV channels once NTSC TV goes away.
>
> How about this for reallocating those channels:
> Channel 2: Amateur radio, expanding the 6-meter ham band to
> 50-60 MHz.
> Channels 3 & 4: Public safety, fixed/mobile.
> Channels 5 & 6: FM broadcasting, with LPFM at 76-82 MHz,
> non-commercial FM 82-90 MHz, and commercial FM at 90-108
> MHz.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Austin TX & LBJ

> As an aside, it would not be much problem here in Austin.
> We still only have one station below channel 14, thanks to
> the efforts of our representative Lyndon Johnson in the
> sixties. That station is channel 7 and their call letters
> are still KLBJ!

Sixties? Don't you mean '40s & '50s? He was in the House from 1937 to 1949 and the Senate from 1949 to 1961. Did he block any channel allocations while he was in the White House?

Also, isn't Austin close enough to San Antonio to get their Channels 4 & 5, plus the UPN station in between them on Ch. 2, as well as the San Antonio FMs?
 
Re: It's called DAB (Re: Time to expand FM)

> With the transition to digital television, the FCC are
> missing an opportunity here.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Although I'm not requoting your well-explained scheme, I should point out that the wireless phone companies are willing to pay big $$$ for channels 52-69, and the FCC has already promised them they can use it post-transition, so there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades of it being reconsidered.

I would very much like to see FM replace channels 5 and 6 post-transition, though, and that's potentially still up for grabs, should the FCC find so few
DTVs on low-V to make the decision to boot the stragglers up to the 7-51 core.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> Its time to move the AIR frequencies up to a higher band and
> expand FM! How about a 120.1 FM on your car's dial?
>
> This would open up so many new opportunities....... new
> stations, more variety of formats, new owners! It can only
> help. When you got three group owners in any market doing
> the same formats, they all can bleed while the new "117.3
> FM" does something new !
>

Nope, it won't happen right above 107.9 because you get into the aviation band. I think they should go down into where Channel 6 video/audio is at now. You can hear Channel 6 audio at 87.7 and 87.5 and then below that you get into the video signal which would free up more space for stations. AM radio went up the spectrum, so FM can go down the spectrum.
 
> Nice idea as far as LW & AM, but I do know there are other
> services between LW & AM using that spectrum, I'm just
> thinking that the LW spectrum is being used far less now
> than previously for navigation, and there are other means
> being used that are far more popular. I don't think above
> 108 will work though, there's no way they are going to force
> a move of the aircraft frequencies, plus those frequencies
> are in use globally. In the case of going below 88.1, I do
> think it could work, but the big problem would be to try to
> convince the TV industry that they need even less spectrum.
>

They are already losing channels 2 through 12, that's why the DTV signals start at channel 13. And FM can't go above 108 because of the aviation band which is used throughout the world. The only way is to go down or in a totally new band.
 
> If FM were to expand, it would be downward to 76 MHz (where
> the Japanese FM band starts), eliminating Channels 5 & 6.

Indeed this would be a logical expansion -- especially since the hardware is already available...in Japan! When I was in Tokyo on a business trip in the late nineties, I actually bought an FM radio that tuned 76 to 108 MHz. It would be real simple to just start exporting these same versions of the radios to North America to tune an expanded band. No redesign or anything required.
 
> As an aside, it would not be much problem here in Austin.
> We still only have one station below channel 14, thanks to
> the efforts of our representative Lyndon Johnson in the
> sixties. That station is channel 7 and their call letters
> are still KLBJ!

I think it had very little to do with LBJ's clout. Proximity meant that channels that were assigned in Austin couldn't be used in Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, or Waco/Temple. Since Austin wasn't really a very big town in 1952 when the FCC was finalizing it's table of allotments, it isn't surprising that Austin didn't get more than one of those prime VHF allotments.

From what I've read, LBJ's clout did come in handy for assuring that his was his wife that would win the construction permit for that one VHF allotment in Austin.

Oh, and channel 7 in Austin hasn't had the KLBJ call letters in over thirty years. It has been KTBC since Lady Bird sold the station to Times Mirror in 1973. But the KLBJ call letters did live on in the AM and FM radio stations that had been commonly owned with channel 7 until the Times Mirror sale.
 
> They are already losing channels 2 through 12, that's why
> the DTV signals start at channel 13.

This is wrong.

The spectrum that is being retained for digital TV is channels 2 through 51, with channels 52 through 69 being reassigned for other uses.

Due to interference concerns, few stations are opting to remain on the lower VHF band (channels 2 through 6) after the digital transition, but there will still be many, many digital TV stations on the VHF high band (7 through 13).
 
> IIRC, FM was originally something like 49-76 MHz.

The original FM band that was established prior to WWII was 42 to 50 MHz. A proposal was made to expand that band so that it would extend from 41 to 56 MHz, but this never happened. Instead, the FCC bumped FM up to the higher frequency 88 to 106 MHz (later expanded ot 108 MHz) band in 1946.
 
> > They are already losing channels 2 through 12, that's why
> > the DTV signals start at channel 13.
>
> This is wrong.
>
> The spectrum that is being retained for digital TV is
> channels 2 through 51, with channels 52 through 69 being
> reassigned for other uses.
>
> Due to interference concerns, few stations are opting to
> remain on the lower VHF band (channels 2 through 6) after
> the digital transition, but there will still be many, many
> digital TV stations on the VHF high band (7 through 13).

So there you have it... force TV to move up above 6, and drop the lower end of the FM band accordingly. Makes perfect sense to me.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom