[BC] Skywave dying

[Mike McCarthy]

It's only temporary.  In 2009 (unless changed by Congress), that 2nd 
channel goes away.  Stations will need to select whether they want to stay 
on their current digital allocation or move the digital signal to their 
current analog channel.  In the end, each station will have one 6Mhz 
channel.  So I don't see that as a spectrum give-away. There was no 
conceivable way to have allowed dual (IBOC) emission on one 6 Mhz channel 
given the very nature of the video signal in NTSC is AM and takes up nearly 
4.5 Mhz of the channel.

I do see more LPTV's and translators coming on strong when high-VHF 
stations migrate back to their original channel and the resultant opening 
of those transition channels.  I know one station here which is seriously 
considering reverting to their VHF high channel since their UHF coverage is 
greatly lower than their VHF High signal.

The real loosers here are the Part 74 licensees which need those open TV 
channels for their background operations.

MM

At 07:40 PM 3/22/2007 -0500, Stan Tacker wrote
>I think you know what I mean.  Different frequencies were made available to
>stations to allow them to transmit in both the analog mode and digital mode
>during the transition period.  Remember the big cry about the spectrum
>give-away?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Mike McCarthy
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:17 PM
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
>Subject: RE: [BC] Skywave dying
>
>New spectrum was not made available for HD TV. The FCC simply modified the
>rules based on digital's inherent improved to D/U IX ratios on adjacent as
>well as co-channel operation. In fact there is a 100 Mhz loss of spectrum
>in the TV band above TV 52 with that spectrum being allocated to Public
>Safety and commercial LMR.
>
>The sunset date for NTSC was done to facilitate the migration to more
>spectrally efficient digital modes. Aural broadcasting doesn't gain
>anything, and in fact is worse spectrally because of adjacent channel
>occupancy which will impact/interact with analog operations of distant
>stations on AM.  The problem isn't that bad on FM unless there is a
>substantial 2nd adjacent short spacing which most urban Class A stations
>possess.
>
>MM
>
>
>
>At 06:42 PM 3/22/2007 -0500, Stan Tacker wrote
> > >>
> > >> However, they havent MANDATED IBOC on AM or FM
> > >> yet...
> >
> > >Just wait..that too will come.\
> >
> >
> > >Powell
> >
> >Nah, we'll never see an IBOC conversion mandate.  A conversion mandate
> >exists for TV, but that is because new spectrum was made available for the
> >service.  Reselling the old spectrum justifies the forced conversion.
> >
> >No new spectrum was made available for radio.  That's why we're saddled
>with
> >a much less than desirable system.
> >
> >FM IBOC may be around for a while, but there is very little incentive for
>an
> >AM operator to install the system.  Remember how many stations installed AM
> >stereo then turned it off because they lost a bit of loudness?  Will IBOC,
> >with it's greater demands on the transmission system, be any different?  My
> >money says no.  It won't be around long.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> >Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> >www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
>Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
>Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com