[BC] RE:IBOC

[Mike Erickson]

There you go Mark, making sense.  If it makes sense, it has no
business in radio.

Man, when will he LEARN!

=Mike Erickson=

On 7/14/05, Mark Humphrey <mark3xy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Jack,
> 
> I share your opinion.  Is this an impossible dream?
> 
> Is it really too late to reassign a couple of low-band
> channels from TV to radio?   The TV broadcasters
> appear to be giving them up voluntarily.  (Here in
> Philadelphia, both Chs 3 and 6 have elected to keep
> their DTV facilities on UHF following the analog
> sunset.)
> 
> This could provide the "new spectrum" needed for AM
> stations to migrate to digital without the drawbacks
> of trying to make it work in hybrid mode.  Incumbent
> AM licensees would be assigned a new digital channel
> (with same characteristics as full digital IBOC FM) in
> the former TV channels 5 and 6, they would simulcast
> the analog programming through the end of the
> transition period, and we would end up with a single
> digital radio band between 76-108.
> 
> The following (laws-of-physics) problems would be
> solved:
> 
> 1)  Domestic IBOC skywave issues and Canadian
> objections to new nighttime interference.
> 
> 2)  All daytimers could operate at night.
> 
> 3)  Atmospheric (lightning) interference, powerline
> noise, etc. is much less of a problem at 76 MHz than
> at 540 kHz.
> 
> 4)  Building penetration would greatly improve at the
> shorter wavelengths.
> 
> 5)  AM stations would finally offer the same audio
> quality as their FM competitors and gain the
> opportunity to broadcast a secondary service.
> 
> 6)  On-channel digital boosters could be employed to
> fill in dead spots caused by terrain.
> 
> 7)  No more limitations on non-commercial FM due to
> Channel 6 protection rules.
> 
> 8)  Multi-tower arrays would no longer be needed --
> all that real estate could be sold for other uses.  DA
> maintenance would be a thing of the past.  (Some
> stations might keep a single tower to support their
> VHF bay)
> 
> Note that the first six are clear "consumer benefits"
> that could actually convince listeners to run out and
> buy a new radio.
> 
> Let's kick this idea around some more before we decide
> it's too much of a threat to the status quo.
> 
> Mark