[BC] Re: Skywave dying

[Robert Meuser]

Scoot:

That may look nice on paper but things don't work that way.  Look at 
radio as an experiment accidentally gone right. The first broadcasts 
were from Hams. The advertising  model we use today was basically taken 
from the print media of the time. Radio stumbled into maturity and then 
into dominance. Along with this were a few unintended quirks of physics, 
like skywave.  Radio started out local but there was this pesky issue of 
skywaves which were not a problem until more stations came on the air. 
The next unintended consequence was that people were listening to these 
skywaves.  If you look at this country at that time, it was a very 
logical thing. People in isolated areas received information and 
entertainment that was drastically different from what they got in the 
past. Of course things have changed and they changed some time ago. BUT 
just because skywave is no longer a social phenomena does not mean you 
can make it go away.  Stations need all the RF they can get to cover 
modern markets. Even then it is often not enough. What happens when the 
sun sets is beyond the control of a merely mortal person. WSM will have 
about 500 microvolts 50% skywave to about 650 miles from their site at 
night.  That puts a night limit of 10 mv/m on the interfering station 
and the interference  peaks to over 20 millivolts per meter. If you look 
at what it takes just to protect the class A station's  ground wave, 
figure the allowable power of the interfering station, and then look at 
the amount of interference that station will receive, you have yet 
another station hardly heard beyond the parking lot. You can not make 
skywave go away.

R


Bailey, Scott wrote:

>I tend to agree with Clay here, for the typical radio listener (I'm
>leaving out the AM hobbyist here) the once big Class A's need stronger
>"LOCAL" coverage and their radiation needs to be more concentrated on
>their local market than some listener 500 miles away that means nothing
>to them. 
>
>The typical person who listens to major AM station is listening for
>local news, weather bulletins, ballgames, etc., and is only interested
>in what's going on in their market or local area. I realize when
>Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, WWL was a MAJOR source for news and
>info for the market, and this was great, but some people carried on
>about it needed to get info to listeners 600 miles away. That's why we
>have CNN for. DUH!
>
>With this idea in mind, this would mean that a station like KIKK-AM in
>Pasadena Texas that is on 650, could stay on after sunset and WSM here
>in Nashville would be only concerned about the Nashville Market. For
>those concerned about the Grand Ole Opry, it can be put on satellite for
>local stations to carry in local markets, so this would eliminate the
>need for WSM-AM to have to worry about maintaining a huge skywave
>signal.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of k7cr
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:28 AM
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Subject: [BC] Re: Skywave dying
>
>I love to read the coments about Skywave dying as a 
>result of the recent IBOC announcement.
>
>Seems to me, looking back, that the FCC started
>this process many years ago when they declared that
>the historic Clear Channels were no longer needed.
>
>What I am saying is - This is nothing new but rather 
>a continuation of a long process that is based on the 
>contention that you do not need to get your Radio 
>from skywave when you can likely get the same 
>programming via ground-wave from a local station 
>that just happens to be playing the same tune.
>
>Today's Cookie-Cutter Radio is likely a 
>contributor to the continuation of this thinking. Not
>to mention the fact that some have derated one 
>time big skywave generators just to get more local 
>coverage in a large market (no names or calls here) 
>
>Bottom line - Don't blame the FCC...Broadcasters
>need to look in the mirror! 
>
>C
>